Hobby has lost its ‘Magic’.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

Reminds me of my original LGS where I got into the hobby. When the Armegeddon codex came out for 3rd, the store manager helped organize a huge campaign event that started with BFG on a Saturday, then moved down to Epic for Sunday, and then 40k for the following weekend. I didn't have any BFG or Epic stuff, but it was fun to watch and the atmosphere was great. Haven't seen anything like that since.

[phandaal]

 

 

This is exactly why 25PL-50PL Crusade is my favourite way to play. If this is what you feel the hobby has lost, you've got to try it. Because from this post, I can only assume you haven't.

 

 

Open War does this for me. Just fun pickup games that you can structure with whatever win condition and narrative you like.

 

Last game I played, my jump pack Interrogator Chaplain, Gristle McThornbody, powerfisted Kaldor Draigo to death after surviving multiple rounds of close combat and psychic fury. Best moment of the game, even if my Deathwing were being mortal wounded to oblivion left and right.

[Rik Lightstar]

 

 

I don't think that the hobby has lost it's magic, but I do think that the magic has changed over the years.

Hard agree.

 

I fondly remember doing the Mad Dog store challenge in Luton in 1999 and winning my first hobby pin. I can remember the sheer gravitas the store manager was exuding as he role played Abaddon the Despoiler in a store wide Eye of Terra game, it was a day long event and the score sheet was sent off the Warhammer World for sorting in the wider Campaign points. Same for Armageddon, I remember facing down hordes of greenskins one day and then bullying space marines the next with my own orks. The imagination was wild and the memories are colorful. From running down thieves to get product back through to wincing as I remember a guy dropping the old metal dreadnought onto his foot whilst he had sandals on.

 

Now the magic is different. It is found in the satisfaction of fielding a painted army, of trying new techniques at the hobby table, or blending lore and miniature together to tell a story. Do I miss those days? Absolutely. Do I miss them enough to let it impact my love for the hobby now? Not at all.

We may well have crossed paths at some point. My stint with GW was from 2003-2007ish at the St Albans and Hemel stores mainly, and then I was playing at the Luton club pretty regularly up until Covid killed the Bloodbowl league.

 

Rik

[Monstra Sumus]

We may well have crossed paths at some point. My stint with GW was from 2003-2007ish at the St Albans and Hemel stores mainly, and then I was playing at the Luton club pretty regularly up until Covid killed the Bloodbowl league.

 

Rik

Could very well have! I played mostly at the Luton GW til it shut down. Did a few games at the Hemel GW. Then Basement Gaming at the Hat Factory and then the Luton Table Top Club.

 

I started with Biel Tan Eldar, moved onto Ultramarines and Blood Angels, then Orks and Tyranids.

 

Used to run D&D at the gaming groups too.

[Tawnis]

 

 

This is exactly why 25PL-50PL Crusade is my favourite way to play. If this is what you feel the hobby has lost, you've got to try it. Because from this post, I can only assume you haven't.

 

Sort of. I use the Crusade system as a basis for the narrative campaigns I run, but while it's a good framework, the system is pretty bare bones, and I haven't run a non-tweaked version of it yet. I'm hoping that it gets a lot more depth in 10th ed, because what is there is great, I just wish there was more to it. 

[ThePenitentOne]

Yeah, it does work better if you add some sort of campaign framework to run multiplayer stuff. The stuff from the campaign books/ mission packs works, but only for those theatres of war.

 

Personally, I use a modified form of Streets of Death from Urban Conquest.

[The Neverborn]

I was watching codex compliant on youtube today.

 

For me the most magical time in the hobby was around 3rd to 5th ed.

 

I'm not sure why there was a number of reasons.

 

This was around the time when the games were still "skirmish" types.

The codexs had elements of we're doing this because it's fun

Titanic units were not in the game

I could easily get through a 1,500 point game in 1.5 to 2 hours

There was a lot less codex bloat.

 

From around 6 and moving through to 8th is when the above started to seem to disappear from the game.

 

While the models are a lot better now, especially the greater daemons. There's too many releases in my opinion. The Marines have the worst of it. Depending on your preferences you may see a lot of choices or different models to paint but I see too many choices leading to a cycling redundancy.

 

3rd through 5th was far from perfect, tanks at some point became bunkers, transports were at points unpractical, taking a storm bolter could improve the reliance of a Land Raider ... (some how) there was bizzare wound allocation rules  at some points.

 

I'd actually quite like to play older edition of rules.

 

Finally i feel the "tournament" mind set has seeped down to the game store.

 

I'm hoping that at some point GW will return to something more reminiscent of 3rd to 5th. But it's not going to be for a while.

[Rik Lightstar]

@Battle Brother Abderus

 

I completely agree that the tendency towards most games being "Tournament Style" has hurt enjoyment of the hobby, especially when it comes to playing new and different opponents. There are a few reasons why I think it's happened and why I think it's less than ideal........

 

Why I think it has happened:

• Tournaments are a more regular thing now than they were 20 years ago, more stores and clubs hold smaller tournaments and there are certainly FAR more large events now in the UK each year than there were.
• Because of this in a lot of gaming groups the most "active" players in the group are almost always preparing for their next tournament, so those are the style of games they want to play.
• Wargaming as a hobby is far more diverse in the number of systems available and players often have forces for more than one system, so sticking to the tournament style games makes it easier to chop and change.
• The standard "matched play" army building rules are the ones that most people know so it makes them the easiest set to use when arranging pick-up games, it is essentially the "guaranteed shared standard" and once you've played someone a few times in that format you might suggest mixing it up a little.
• For new players getting into the game there are simply FAR more resources online for Tournament lists than any other type of play, this gives them the feel that that is the way they should be playing.

Why I think it isn't such a good thing:

• Online resources are HEAVILY weighted in favour of really competitive Matched Play lists, to the extent that;
  • When a unit is a few points above optimal or doesn't quite have the stratagem synergy of another unit in the same Codex it is declared unplayable
  • When a Codex or Sub-Faction isn't top of the current meta it is declared unplayable.
• Meaning that newer players are less likely to diverge from the "Best Builds" or to develop their own play styles.

 

• The prevalence of Tournament standard games gives the impression that it is the ONLY or the ONLY CORRECT way to play;
  • New players don't get to play games at lower points levels which makes it harder to learn the rules and interactions.
  • The game seems far less accessible when you are told HAVE to have a 2000 army to play properly.
  • When you have to commit 3 hours to playing your game, it drastically reduces your opportunities to play and how many games you can play when you do get the chance.
  • People play less "Narrative Games" and "Asymmetric Missions" and these are often the games that generate the best memories.

When I started out playing 40k (far too long ago) we played smaller games at the start because that was all we had, whoever had the smaller force determined the size of game we'd play. There was also no real guidance on what choices for your army list were good or bad, you just chose something that looked cool, sounded cool or had some interesting rules  and then tried it out which led to us using units that would never even see the light of day on today's tables.

 

I've fallen foul of the pitfalls of the tournament focus as a new player myself when getting into other systems with X-Wing and Underworlds being great examples. A group of us got into them and we were in the "Arms Race" to find the best and most efficient lists and combinations with little of the "individuality" that we'd normally bring to our gaming. Fuelled and led by Facebook Groups, Blogs and Forums we passed by options that were deemed sub-par and only once we'd gotten bored of following "accepted internet wisdom" did we actually start having more fun with them.

 

In no way do I think that competitive and tournament gaming are BAD things, quite the opposite in fact, I love going to tournaments. However I do feel that there's too much focus  on them and that across "The Hobby" as a whole the balance is off.

 

Rik

[phandaal]

snip

 

When I got back into 40k, I tried playing in a "beginner" 750-1000 pt Matched Play league at my local game store. Quickly found out it was mostly veterans trying out their most destructive low-point lists and maybe a handful of beginners.

 

First game, got my models deleted by a long-time player using all of his army's gotcha strategems.

 

Other games followed a similar vein.

 

Last game in the league (for me anyway), got matched with a guy using what could only be described as a "noob crusher" list. Rolled up half my army in his first turn and seemed surprised when I dipped halfway through turn 2 after he had finished off most of what remained.

 

Stopped going after that. Started using local Facebook groups and Discord servers to set up Open War games. Never looked back. Been having a blast since then, win or lose. Something about the format just encourages people to play for fun, even when they might spend the majority of their time playing competitively. There are also more opportunities to play thematic or narrative games, which to me are what make 40k great.

[Karhedron]

When I got back into 40k, I tried playing in a "beginner" 750-1000 pt Matched Play league at my local game store. Quickly found out it was mostly veterans trying out their most destructive low-point lists and maybe a handful of beginners.

It sucks when that happens but I think that is a problem with people, not with the game. I don't think GW has actively encouraged the competitive scene as such. Much of their recent work like regular points updates seem aimed at making things more balanced. In theory, that should level the playing field for everyone by narrowing the gap between "tournement" and "casual" army lists. At the end of the day, if someone brings out their most competitive list against new players, they will soon run out of opponents.

 

On a separate note, I took as bit of a break from modelling over the last couple of months. Real life has been stressful and I couldn't seem to find my mojo. Last night I picked up a half-built phobos Librarian and started painting and it all came flooding back. 2 hours later I had to make myself put it down and go to bed before it got to silly o'clock. If the magic fades, take a break and come back to it refreshed.

[Rik Lightstar]

 

snip

 

When I got back into 40k, I tried playing in a "beginner" 750-1000 pt Matched Play league at my local game store. Quickly found out it was mostly veterans trying out their most destructive low-point lists and maybe a handful of beginners.

 

First game, got my models deleted by a long-time player using all of his army's gotcha strategems.

 

Other games followed a similar vein.

 

Last game in the league (for me anyway), got matched with a guy using what could only be described as a "noob crusher" list. Rolled up half my army in his first turn and seemed surprised when I dipped halfway through turn 2 after he had finished off most of what remained.

 

Stopped going after that. Started using local Facebook groups and Discord servers to set up Open War games. Never looked back. Been having a blast since then, win or lose. Something about the format just encourages people to play for fun, even when they might spend the majority of their time playing competitively. There are also more opportunities to play thematic or narrative games, which to me are what make 40k great.

 

 

I get exactly what you're saying, and reading your post I've struck upon the analogy that I think summarises the issue with "Matched Play" being the standard.

 

Imagine if you were just joining a local martial arts or boxing club as a novice or someone returning with some past experience. When you arrive to take part you find out that rather than "light sparring" with minimal contact being how you start you end up with full contact and points scoring. Two gruelling minutes later you've got bruises and a bloody nose whilst your "sparring partner" is stood over you gloating about their victory.

 

This isn't a productive way to introduce people to a hobby, or to welcome them back.

 

There are groups within the Wargaming Community that seem to use their games in an attempt to assert their dominance and these are the ones that can all too often suck the magic from it.

 

Rik

[phandaal]

 

When I got back into 40k, I tried playing in a "beginner" 750-1000 pt Matched Play league at my local game store. Quickly found out it was mostly veterans trying out their most destructive low-point lists and maybe a handful of beginners.

It sucks when that happens but I think that is a problem with people, not with the game. I don't think GW has actively encouraged the competitive scene as such. Much of their recent work like regular points updates seem aimed at making things more balanced. In theory, that should level the playing field for everyone by narrowing the gap between "tournement" and "casual" army lists. At the end of the day, if someone brings out their most competitive list against new players, they will soon run out of opponents.

 

 

Certainly was a problem with the people.

 

I also think Matched Play encourages a more "competitive" mindset. When people go in with the expectation that they are playing the competitive game mode, they live up to that expectation. Ditto for the casual game mode.

 

My post was not intended to place blame on Games Workshop - hence the reason I did not mention them in that post.

 

The only thing GW could really do about it is put their casual modes more front and center. The way Matched Play is presented is as the premiere 40k experience, which may cause people to discount other game modes.

[Dark Shepherd]

There was hints at this in the rules survey but Im a big proponent of there being 2 official modes of matched play, one with one or no secondaries and one thats full tournament mode

 

Would cut out some of the powergaming the new guy

[phandaal]

There was hints at this in the rules survey but Im a big proponent of there being 2 official modes of matched play, one with one or no secondaries and one thats full tournament mode

 

Would cut out some of the powergaming the new guy

 

That is basically what Open War is, if you use the mission cards or play a Crusade mission with Open War rules. Follow the same army building rules as Matched Play, enjoy a game without so much focus on Retrieving Octarius Skulls or having a bike in 4 corners of the map, etc.

 

For me it was definitely key to finding enjoyment in 9th edition. If anyone is feeling disillusioned with Matched Play I highly recommend giving the other game modes a shot.

[Dark Shepherd]

 

 

There was hints at this in the rules survey but Im a big proponent of there being 2 official modes of matched play, one with one or no secondaries and one thats full tournament mode

 

Would cut out some of the powergaming the new guy

That is basically what Open War is, if you use the mission cards or play a Crusade mission with Open War rules. Follow the same army building rules as Matched Play, enjoy a game without so much focus on Retrieving Octarius Skulls or having a bike in 4 corners of the map, etc.

 

For me it was definitely key to finding enjoyment in 9th edition. If anyone is feeling disillusioned with Matched Play I highly recommend giving the other game modes a shot.

Ha was looking at Crusade missions in the rulebook last night with that in mind

Guess Id like it more formal/obvious as yeah points is much more balanced than power level

 

IIRC were the mission cards for 9th just in a white dwarf or something?

[phandaal]

Open War mission cards are an actual deck of cards you can buy. Got a cool picture of a mixed Primaris/Firstborn Crimson Fists on the box.

 

The deck has deployment setup cards, objective setup/mission scoring cards, and "twist" cards that alter the match somehow (i.e. units 18" away have light cover, psykers cast easier but also peril easier, etc). There are also cards to even the odds when playing unmatched points/power level games.

 

You can either draw from the cards randomly or pick out the ones you want to generate a mission with.

[Noserenda]

The problem is Open play in particular carries a lot of stigma with some people unfortunately and conversely Matched play has the reputation of being the "standard" format. I think either rebranding or splitting matched play is the way to go to have a largely balanced, simple play mode for pickup games and the like and then the Tournament set up with over complicated scenarios, secondaries and bloat for those that enjoy/have the time for that.

Personally Open war is quite fun in AoS at least, though the random bonuses were super imbalanced lol

[Scribe]

They need a quick play format. No stratagems, no cards, no crazy random stuff.

 

1500 points, single codex, setup and roll.

 

(Aka: 5th)

[The Neverborn]

Tournament play isn't for everyone.

 

It isn't for me. I watched one of Daniel Brewsters 40k guilds.

 

Something along the lines of placing your models 1.1 inches inside terrain. The result being they can't be assaulted as they're more than 1 inch away from the edge of the terrain feature and there's no basis small enough to fit inside the wall.

 

Playing that way isn't fun for me, but removing 40% of my army on turn 1 is even less fun.

 

What's even worse

 

I actually considered modelling my Lord of change with the held sword across the chest as that, shrinks the profile, making him slightly easier to hide. As you can shoot the whole model if you can see a single part of the model now matter how small it is.

 

That's   up, not the rule but their being a "better way" to glue the model together.

[Dark Shepherd]

Open War mission cards are an actual deck of cards you can buy. Got a cool picture of a mixed Primaris/Firstborn Crimson Fists on the box.

 

The deck has deployment setup cards, objective setup/mission scoring cards, and "twist" cards that alter the match somehow (i.e. units 18" away have light cover, psykers cast easier but also peril easier, etc). There are also cards to even the odds when playing unmatched points/power level games.

 

You can either draw from the cards randomly or pick out the ones you want to generate a mission with.

I was mixing them up with the tactical objevtive cards, stupid brain

[Rik Lightstar]

With the Open War cards they could make them work similarly to the cards for Star Wars Legion.

 

It would work something like this:

 

- Determine first and second player for set up

- Deal out face up 3 each of Deployment, Objective and Twist Cards in rows left to right

- Each player has 2 "vetoes"

- Starting with the first player you take turns to "veto" the left most card from the row of your choice or to "pass"

- There must be at least one card left in each row

- When each player has vetoed or passed twice the left most card remaining in each row is the one that gets used for that game

 

This would give each player an element of choice and control over the game conditions but still gives an element of random generation.

 

I might well give it a try for my next game of 40k

 

Rik

[phandaal]

With the Open War cards they could make them work similarly to the cards for Star Wars Legion.

 

It would work something like this:

 

- Determine first and second player for set up

- Deal out face up 3 each of Deployment, Objective and Twist Cards in rows left to right

- Each player has 2 "vetoes"

- Starting with the first player you take turns to "veto" the left most card from the row of your choice or to "pass"

- There must be at least one card left in each row

- When each player has vetoed or passed twice the left most card remaining in each row is the one that gets used for that game

 

This would give each player an element of choice and control over the game conditions but still gives an element of random generation.

 

I might well give it a try for my next game of 40k

 

Rik

That is how we do it every time. Much better than making it completely random.

 

And yes it does take a little bit longer to find someone to play a game of Open War. For me it is worth a little more trouble to have a good time!

[ThePenitentOne]

They need a quick play format. No stratagems, no cards, no crazy random stuff.

 

1500 points, single codex, setup and roll.

 

(Aka: 5th)

 This is called "Not Battleforging Your Armies" and it's available to anyone in all three modes of play.

 

(You do still get 1 CP per turn, but you can only use it on the common BRB strats)

 

Again, the problem is players. This edition of the game has been designed for maximum flexibility, but everyone would rather complain than try all of the other options, of which there are more than there have ever been.

[Scribe]

 

They need a quick play format. No stratagems, no cards, no crazy random stuff.

 

1500 points, single codex, setup and roll.

 

(Aka: 5th)

 This is called "Not Battleforging Your Armies" and it's available to anyone in all three modes of play.

 

(You do still get 1 CP per turn, but you can only use it on the common BRB strats)

 

Again, the problem is players. This edition of the game has been designed for maximum flexibility, but everyone would rather complain than try all of the other options, of which there are more than there have ever been.

 

 

No, Stratagems or whatever need to be removed, all these alternative FoC's, need to be removed. Get back to the roots, we have lost our way. :p

[phandaal]

 

 

They need a quick play format. No stratagems, no cards, no crazy random stuff.

 

1500 points, single codex, setup and roll.

 

(Aka: 5th)

This is called "Not Battleforging Your Armies" and it's available to anyone in all three modes of play.

 

(You do still get 1 CP per turn, but you can only use it on the common BRB strats)

 

Again, the problem is players. This edition of the game has been designed for maximum flexibility, but everyone would rather complain than try all of the other options, of which there are more than there have ever been.

"Everyone" is a whole lot of people, some of whom are in this thread being very positive about alternative ways to play 40k.