Is 40k actually badly imblanced?

[Valkyrion]

 

 

Personally, the worst gaming experiences I've had have been at narrative events. This is where you inevitably get everything from kids (and adults) with armies that aren't remotely legal and who barely know the rules to people who've copied whatever list won the last major - and who also sometimes barely know the rules. It's really frustrating to play in an environment where I can't know what to bring, because sometimes I'll sweep aside my opponent no matter what I do, and others I'll be facing an average player behind a godlike army that someone else designed.

 

 

I would LOVE to actually play through an entire Crusade escalation campaign using all the Charadon resources or all the Octarius resources. It would take some wizard GM's to pull this off, but I think it could be epic if done properly.

 

 

 

This is part of the problem. It's not Dungeons and Dragons or Black Crusade, it's a tabletop war game - there shouldn't be so much book keeping and rules to follow that a wizard GM is necessary. Having a GM at all should be a luxury, not a requirement.

 

I know you're speaking narratively, and that is a different issue to competitive play, but the amount of rules is what leads to imbalance. 

[Noserenda]

Yeah that can always be a problem at narrative events, some players even get a rep for being beardy or trying to bring some competitive edge to them. Most not even maliciously, thats just how they enjoy the game but there is a time and a place for it :) 

 

 

I'd like to know/ hear more about narrative events. What you describe here doesn't actually sound narrative at all, but then the term does need some clarification.

 

Right now, according to the BRB, narrative = Crusade.

 

 

 

Narrative gaming is always going to be a bit of a fluffy definition by its very nature, GW (rightly) just felt it could do with a bit of structure if they were going to define it and came up with Crusade, their old definition of "asymmetric games" worked a lot less well. Though asymmetric games can be awesome they are far from the be all and end all of narrative gaming after all, i think its more of a mindset but then that varies from mind to mind at the best of times! 

 

 

 

 

This is part of the problem. It's not Dungeons and Dragons or Black Crusade, it's a tabletop war game - there shouldn't be so much book keeping and rules to follow that a wizard GM is necessary. Having a GM at all should be a luxury, not a requirement.

 

I know you're speaking narratively, and that is a different issue to competitive play, but the amount of rules is what leads to imbalance. 

 

I mean, you try running any event (Even, no, especially competitive ones) past a handful of people without someone "GM-ing" it and youll see why they are needed :D The best narrative events do need someone actually, you know, running the narrative because lord knows just putting the narrative in their campaign packs with themed scenarios wont get you there. I speak from bitter experience on both sides of that! 

[Valkyrion]

 

 

 

 

 

This is part of the problem. It's not Dungeons and Dragons or Black Crusade, it's a tabletop war game - there shouldn't be so much book keeping and rules to follow that a wizard GM is necessary. Having a GM at all should be a luxury, not a requirement.

 

I know you're speaking narratively, and that is a different issue to competitive play, but the amount of rules is what leads to imbalance. 

 

I mean, you try running any event (Even, no, especially competitive ones) past a handful of people without someone "GM-ing" it and youll see why they are needed The best narrative events do need someone actually, you know, running the narrative because lord knows just putting the narrative in their campaign packs with themed scenarios wont get you there. I speak from bitter experience on both sides of that! 

 

I understand that, just for brevities sake I didn't go too far into my opinion on narrative events in case the mods deemed it a bit OT - but IMO a tabletop wargame shouldn't need a GM below six players, and Crusade kinda forces you to need one even at that small level. 

[Mandragola]

 

 

Personally, the worst gaming experiences I've had have been at narrative events. This is where you inevitably get everything from kids (and adults) with armies that aren't remotely legal and who barely know the rules to people who've copied whatever list won the last major - and who also sometimes barely know the rules. It's really frustrating to play in an environment where I can't know what to bring, because sometimes I'll sweep aside my opponent no matter what I do, and others I'll be facing an average player behind a godlike army that someone else designed.

 

I'd like to know/ hear more about narrative events. What you describe here doesn't actually sound narrative at all, but then the term does need some clarification.

 

Right now, according to the BRB, narrative = Crusade.

 

Personally, I don't subscribe to this definition- and I'm a DIEHARD Crusader. I believe that narrative games can be played in any of GW's 3 ways with the key being... well, a narrative- ie. a story that gives the battles an over-arching context. I see this as being achieved in a number of ways- a discreet setting and timeframe; campaign rules; team/ group objectives; escalation, etc.

 

I would LOVE to actually play through an entire Crusade escalation campaign using all the Charadon resources or all the Octarius resources. It would take some wizard GM's to pull this off, but I think it could be epic if done properly.

 

I've heard people speak of Crusade leagues where the goal is to produce a "winner" - in some ways, this seems antithetical to the whole idea of Crusade. But even this needs clarification: if by "winner" we mean winning player, well to me, that just seems like people not really getting the intent of "narrative." If, however, we mean "winning faction" within a given theatre or theatres of war, well that's kinda dead on.

 

Personally, if I was running a regular Crusade campaign, I'd have each player select a personal story goal connected to the overall development of their army in addition to creating the story conditions for the type of faction victory described above. 

 

I'm mainly talking about events at Warhammer World, though I've been to a few others. There, they can't admit that their rules are imbalanced, so they impose no restrictions and don't require you to submit lists early to see if they're appropriate for an event like this - or indeed legal.

 

So on the whole three kinds of players turn up. You have the "beer and pretzels" crowd, who want to have fun and may or may not have great-looking thematic armies and/or understand the rules. Then you have new people who want to learn the game and have brought basically their whole collection, but who barely know the rules and tactics. Finally there are people who just like to win so, rather than enter a tournament and face actual competition, have brought a netlist to try and beat people from the first two groups.

 

For example at one event in 6th or 7th I played against a young teenager with a fairly random assortment of daemons that could barely form a legal list - and which he hadn't written up as one. But on another table there was a guy with three warhound titans - which (then) cost 2250 points in a 2000 point event, but which the organisers were letting him have.

 

My issue is, what on earth do I bring? I'm a better player than most members of group 3 and it's frustrating to bring an army that will lose to them. But I don't derive much pleasure from crushing people in groups 1 or 2.

 

Most games are at least a bit competitive, and that can get out of hand. We've all seen a family game of monopoly (or whatever) get too heated. It's hard to turn off that competitive instinct for a narrative event, for me at least. The part of my brain that understands strategy is still there telling me what to do, whoever I'm playing. I end up finding it kind of an unnatural experience where I'm constantly trying to second guess what I ought to be doing. At a tournament I can just read the event pack, bring something that meets its (usually) well-laid out rules and try and beat people, fair and square.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

 

 

 

This is part of the problem. It's not Dungeons and Dragons or Black Crusade, it's a tabletop war game - there shouldn't be so much book keeping and rules to follow that a wizard GM is necessary. Having a GM at all should be a luxury, not a requirement.

 

I know you're speaking narratively, and that is a different issue to competitive play, but the amount of rules is what leads to imbalance. 

 

 

It's actually beyond narrative- when I spoke of GM's, I was speaking very specifically about Charadon/ Octarius campaigns.

 

GM's aren't necessary for book keeping, or even really to deal with rules; they are necessary to impartially coordinate missions in order to tell a story. Chief among their responsibilities would be assigning theatre of war rules to particular battles, determining which campaign perks are available when and where, etc. Both Charadon books advocated using a GM, though they did say the games, or even a campaign could be played without one.

 

Book keeping is as much about advance preparation as it is about anything else. If you bring cards for every unit, status tokens can be applied to the card, and the various crusade tallies can be recorded directly on it. Updating the cards post game every game is critical to Crusade.

 

As for the idea that 40k isn't D&D, the point of 9th ed is that it is whatever the players want it to be, and if they want it to be D&D, it was designed to be flexible enough to accommodate that choice; this is precisely why it is my favourite edition. I always wanted 40k to feel like Necromunda or Inquisitor, and now it can. If you don't want the game to feel that way, it's okay, because stand-alone, 2k matched games still exist.

[MegaVolt87]

 

 

 

 

 

This is part of the problem. It's not Dungeons and Dragons or Black Crusade, it's a tabletop war game - there shouldn't be so much book keeping and rules to follow that a wizard GM is necessary. Having a GM at all should be a luxury, not a requirement.

 

I know you're speaking narratively, and that is a different issue to competitive play, but the amount of rules is what leads to imbalance. 

 

 

It's actually beyond narrative- when I spoke of GM's, I was speaking very specifically about Charadon/ Octarius campaigns.

 

GM's aren't necessary for book keeping, or even really to deal with rules; they are necessary to impartially coordinate missions in order to tell a story. Chief among their responsibilities would be assigning theatre of war rules to particular battles, determining which campaign perks are available when and where, etc. Both Charadon books advocated using a GM, though they did say the games, or even a campaign could be played without one.

 

Book keeping is as much about advance preparation as it is about anything else. If you bring cards for every unit, status tokens can be applied to the card, and the various crusade tallies can be recorded directly on it. Updating the cards post game every game is critical to Crusade.

 

As for the idea that 40k isn't D&D, the point of 9th ed is that it is whatever the players want it to be, and if they want it to be D&D, it was designed to be flexible enough to accommodate that choice; this is precisely why it is my favourite edition. I always wanted 40k to feel like Necromunda or Inquisitor, and now it can. If you don't want the game to feel that way, it's okay, because stand-alone, 2k matched games still exist.

 

 

If you are expecting "balance" in a crusade league then you are most definitely going to need a GM to run a narrative/ crusade event . As far as I can tell there seems to be no real catchup or handicap mechanics to use in the base toolbox of the rules. You definitely need a GM to oversee such measures. 

 

I have run one old school KT style event which was basically the modern combat patrol we have today, with some other custom elements I now can't remember specifically (4th ed, Battle of Phoienix Island p250 BBB I modified). I remember asking some players to re-think their lists- the ones with the underpowered ones. Asking the competitive guys to tone it down was a fruitless exercise, its easier to boost a more casual person up. So, I let the casuals proxy, borrow models etc. That still wasn't a guarantee of success. I think I gave a handicap of loser VP + half VP bonus of the base victory VP, while slightly increasing the victory VP as well for some players. The comp guys didn't raise an issue, I think they worked out why I was making some people re-write lists and allow some proxy/borrow models. The combination of strong lists and modded VP's ensured a far healthier VP gap than the expected chasm VP drop off on the weekly score sheets which would have likely caused most of the casuals to drop after two weeks. I had to constantly check score sheets and list changes, they were either incompletely filled or miscalculated. The vets were usually only out 5-10 pts, that's a common arithmetic error in old school list builds or they were lazy in filling the score sheets completely. The casuals were lost with legal lists + rules and the comp VP's tracking- basically everything. 

 

Its not possible to run a narrative event without a GM in a mixed play group. If you do it will split the group because some will feel excluded. The casuals because its "too hardcore" or the vets won't be interested in the "kiddy pool". Even then, in my case it only worked because the group all knew each other and I was very pro-active + organized, which indirectly gave others confidence in what was going on.

 

In contrast its easy to run a simple 40k escalation store league, split in factions a X,Y,Z points using the matched/ standard play mode with an arbitrary W/L/D VP system. Everyone can participate with no commitments outside their faction because the only tracked scores are the factions, not individual players on the rosters. You also know how many points you need each week, week 1-2 X pts, week 3-4 Y pts, week 5-6 Z pts. A locked in list is also unneeded, it just needs to be the correct points of the week in question. You could sign to a faction and participate in the entire thing, insert yourself at the desired points bracket, drop in/out over the league etc. The scorekeeping is simple, the store owner can keep a tally or the organizer can be notified over socials, email, txt/mob etc. Depending on the player number its either on a simple excel or even on paper for roster/ score tally. Transient players don't tank the whole score/event because others get more games in to compensate etc. Its a far more de-centralized process to run than a narrative event in comparison. Also a faction escalation store league shields the casuals from a low score next to their name, it mixes casuals and vets in each faction and everyone is more competitive/ enthusiastic to play to see their faction win the league. 

[ThePenitentOne]

There are two mechanisms at work in Crusade; the first is bonus CP to the underdog. The second is that XP tend to come at the opportunity cost of RP- to get the first you need to focus on Agendas; to get the second you need to focus on the win.

 

Now I'm not saying either of these are perfect for achieving balance, merely that they are present in the base Crusade rules. A GM certainly can help maintain balance through arbitration, but I think a group of like-minded, story driven folk can do it just as well.

 

But the campaign books do impose additional game features which require impartiality, which makes GM moderation that much more important.