WH40K Game Time and Optional Rules

[ThePenitentOne]

 

 

A game of 40K is how long now? Its just too much time to invest, for only 1 player to enjoy.

 

 

I know I sound like a broken record, and sorry to reply to you specifically when the comment is actually meant to respond everyone who seems to be struggling with the current edition:

 

A game of 40k in 9th is exactly how long you want it to be, since four games sizes and three game modes are actually supported by the rule set and extended resources. Since any or all of the existing campaign layers of rules can be easily included or excluded by a simple act of player choice, this creates a total of 36 different types of 40k games that can be supported with multiple missions for each. That number will be going up to 48 within the next two months, and 60 by the end of the year.

 

Now I've written many, many times about how I realize that not every player has access to like minded individuals who are willing to step outside the dominant 2k Matched where every campaign book is legal modality. I wish everyone did have the option, because I think people might have a greater sense of what the rules set actually allows, rather than feeling trapped within a modality which they find unsatisfying.

 

Caveat: Leaks from the new Chapter Approved have me somewhat concerned. While the resource clams to be a Matched Play resource, it is rumoured to impact rules that are common to multiple modes of play (detachment composition and blended subfaction rules) rather than restricting itself to rules which are matched play rules alone (such as mission primaries and secondaries, point values, and discreet rules such as RO3 which are clearly labeled as Matched Play Only). Without careful wording on behalf of the designers, modifying shared rules will significantly impact the multi-modal nature of the game design, which I currently perceive to be its greatest, yet most underutilized strength.

 

If the book is written in such a way that it compromises Crusade RAW, I know that I personally have players who will accept houserules that ignore the changes. But for the types of folks who are trapped in a single modality by their access to openminded opponents, they will find themselves in a position where in the once in a blue moonoccassion where they have found someone who will let them escape the paradigm that keeps them so miserable, it won't matter anyways because the multimodal nature of the game will have been eroded.

 

PS: Sorry that much of this post will seem off-topic.

[Scribe]

 

A game of 40k in 9th is exactly how long you want it to be, since four games sizes and three game modes are actually supported by the rule set and extended resources. Since any or all of the existing campaign layers of rules can be easily included or excluded by a simple act of player choice, this creates a total of 36 different types of 40k games that can be supported with multiple missions for each. That number will be going up to 48 within the next two months, and 60 by the end of the year.

 

 

As long as you understand that for a significant, if not majority, portion of the player base, this a negative 'feature'.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

 

As long as you understand that for a significant, if not majority, portion of the player base, this a negative 'feature'.

 

 

It can't possibly be, because if you don't like 500 point games set in Octarius, you dont have to play them. 

 

An option can never be a negative feature, because it is by definition OPTIONAL. If your group refuses to see it as optional, that's not the game's fault. It's your player group. That was the whole point of my post.

 

If you're unhappy with 2k Matched, that isn't because of 25PL Nachmund Crusade or 3000 point Open. 

 

But what I'm saying is that you might like one of the other size/ mode/ content combos better than the one you're currently unsatisfied with. I know there are players who have genuinely tried many different ways to play and are unsatisfied with all of them; I also no there are an even greater number of people who will claim that other modes aren't satisfying even though they've never actually tried it, and for some of these folks it's beyond their control because they can't find opponents willing to step out of the box.

 

But an option can never be bad, because if you don't like it, you just don't use it and it ceases to be a problem- especially when the option in question is a mode of play.

 

But that's really as much as we can say about this because it's off topic, and I'm sorry that I'm the one who started.  

[Scribe]

Nope, excessive options can be bad if there is a desire for a standard accepted set of rules.

[Brother Tyler]

Note that this topic was split from the Eldar Codex Leaks discussion in NRBA, where it was an interesting, but off-topic, sideshow.

[Xenith]

Agree. I'm glad to continue this discussion. 

 

In my group in particular, there has been an emphasis on 2k point GT missions...yet a lot of people are just starting out with the game and as a result have to check the codex every 2 mins - games rarely reach the end of T3 after 4 hours (including ~1hour of discussion, table mission&terrain set up).

 

I've been pushing for smaller games, including crusade, which have been happening, and we're getting to T5 now. 

 

This is a bit off topic and on my own experiences. I think GW could do more to differentiate these tourney rules from normal pick up matched play.

 

Seeing as noone I know uses open play, and open play seems more narrative, I'd suggest rolling open+narrative together and creating a tournament play style, so you have:

 

Narrative (uses PL, no restrictions on units, etc)

Matched - rulebook secondaries and scoring, uses points, no restrictions on units <- this is where pick up games should be. 

Tournament - all the latest tweaks and gubbins, uses tourney missions and complex scoring. 

[Orange Knight]

In my opinion having options is not a bad thing, and standardised rules can be a negative force as much as a positive one.

 

What happens if you don't enjoy a set of rules? You're completely out of luck in the scenario of such a system. That's why having options to cater games to your preference is the better option.

 

I stand by what I have said in the past, and in some recent discussions also: A game of 40k is a commitment in terms of time, money and effort. Often travel is involved, and further expenses that come with dedicating the better part of a day to gaming.

What we need to do as a community is learn to voice our desires in terms of what we want to get out of a game. Games Workshop have given us a lot of options that the community, for one reason or another, is unwilling to use. A lot of complaints that are repeated across this forum, and others, can be resolved simply by arranging a certain type of game with an opponent.

 

The more we do this, the more accepted and easy to arrange it becomes. It is not unreasonable to outline the kind of experience you want before you sink hours of your day into it. You can't force someone into watching a movie they don't enjoy, and you can't force them into a game either.

 

If you want a brief game, arrange it. If you don't want to use CP, say so. You WILL find like-minded people, and you'll discover that games are more accommodating than you might 1st expect. People that are un-willing to show any flexibility like this are perhaps not worth playing in the meantime, as they are taking what they want and giving nothing back.

[Cleon]

Having played 40k on and off for (too many) years, one of the best things the recent editions have done from my pointof view is admit the game changes at different points levels, and adjusting the command points & suggested table size for it - a melee army trying to chase down a spread out shooty one is a very different game at 1000 and 2500 points on the same size tables.

[Scribe]

I'm not suggesting removal of options.

 

Full blown GT/Comp with all the fixings? Fine.

 

Crusade? Fine.

 

Open with planning with your opponent? Fine.

 

My suggestion/desire however, is for something like what I and my group had going in 5th.

 

Show up with 1500-1750 point lists, find an opponent, setup, play, and shake hands all in 1.5 hours.

 

We could get in multiple games a night, and it was just good, quick fun.

 

No masses of optional rules, no layers of various subsystems and resources.

 

Your Codex, Dice, and Models. And a measuring tape...

[phandaal]

9th edition as a core actually feels nice and streamlined.

 

Then we add all this other stuff on top and it slows down big time.

 

However, if both players are familiar enough with their own lists that they can avoid constantly flipping through datasheets and strategems, the game can go much faster.

[Tawnis]

I'm not suggesting removal of options.

 

Full blown GT/Comp with all the fixings? Fine.

 

Crusade? Fine.

 

Open with planning with your opponent? Fine.

 

My suggestion/desire however, is for something like what I and my group had going in 5th.

 

Show up with 1500-1750 point lists, find an opponent, setup, play, and shake hands all in 1.5 hours.

 

We could get in multiple games a night, and it was just good, quick fun.

 

No masses of optional rules, no layers of various subsystems and resources.

 

Your Codex, Dice, and Models. And a measuring tape...

Open Play gets pretty close to this, though if you go that route, I'd suggest the missions cards as the base few in the rulebook get old fast. It's not exactly balanced, but if you're just out to have a good time, it's a lot of fun to play some unique missions with unique effects and sometimes odd deployments. I find that it usually shaves a good hour off the game. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Tawnis

[Lexington]

At the end of the day, I think one of the biggest problems is that the different "modes" aren't, from a tabletop perspective, equally different ways to play the game so much as they're pared-down versions of Matched Play. From a rules perspective, that's the actual game, while Open and Narrative Play are side jobs meant to feel like options, but are experienced more like a beginner or intermediate ruleset. They'll never be accepted as the actual product because they're not really designed to be. Matched Play is, and Matched Play is a chore in 9th.

 

This is probably something GW's aware of, to some extent, but the current rules model is something they're trapped in for business reasons. So we'll likely just continue into this age of multiple alternative rulesets popping up for the increasing number of players who are exhausted with 40K's rules bloat until business conditions either allow for, or force a change in GW's approach to game design.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Lexington

[Scribe]

Agree. I'm glad to continue this discussion.

 

In my group in particular, there has been an emphasis on 2k point GT missions...yet a lot of people are just starting out with the game and as a result have to check the codex every 2 mins - games rarely reach the end of T3 after 4 hours (including ~1hour of discussion, table mission&terrain set up).

 

This, for example reminds me of Apocalypse.

 

A game of 40K shouldn't be this convoluted.

 

There should be a standard where you can show up at your local, find an opponent and roll some dice.

[Tawnis]

At the end of the day, I think one of the biggest problems is that the different "modes" aren't, from a tabletop perspective, equally different ways to play the game so much as they're pared-down versions of Matched Play. From a rules perspective, that's the actual game, while Open and Narrative Play are side jobs meant to feel like options, but are experienced more like a beginner or intermediate ruleset. They'll never be accepted as the actual product because they're not really designed to be. Matched Play is, and Matched Play is a chore in 9th.

 

This is probably something GW's aware of, to some extent, but the current rules model is something they're trapped in for business reasons. So we'll likely just continue into this age of multiple alternative rulesets popping up for the increasing number of players who are exhausted with 40K's rules bloat until business conditions either allow for, or force a change in GW's approach to game design.

Eh, sort of. Matched play is designed as the competitive and "balanced" product. Crusade is still pretty bare bones sure, but it's their first crack at it, I think it's a solid first step. 

 

I play far more Crusade and Open Play than I do matched and I find they all have their pros and cons. Matched Play may be the actual game for you, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I have friends who play a lot and have never played a Matched play game.

 

With things like the Open War cards, it provides a very different experience, but it's not superior or inferior, just different. The lack of attention to specific balance is why I actually like it so much, it's fun to play the underdog from time to time, to be put in a situation where you know you're at an inherit disadvantage and have to find a way to turn the tables. Yet it's not so far that it every feels truly unfair. I think they hit a really good sweet spot with it that required a lot more testing and practice than it seems on the surface. 

[ThePenitentOne]

I'm surprised this turned into such a good discussion- when I saw it was splintered off, I didn't expect it to go very far.

 

The truth is that there have been more books published with Crusade content than there have been without. There are also more books with exclusive Crusade content than there are with exclusive matched content. Most people who post on forums do seem to play 2k Matched as a standard, so it skews our perceptions. Similarly, it's only possible to collect game data for 2k Matched because that's the standard format for tournament play. No one, including GW, can possibly know how many people are actually playing Crusade vs Open vs Matched, nor can they possibly know which game size is played most often.

 

They can guess at the former based on sales of exclusive Crusade and exclusive Open resources. So if we consider that of the 3 campaigns so far in 9th (Pariah, Charadon, Octarius) the was a single Crusade mission pack for the first- if it didn't make enough money to break even, they sure as heck wouldn't have published two crusade mission packs for each of the following campaigns. Similarly, if the two in Charadon hadn't broken even, they probably would have dropped back down to one.

 

GW hasn't formally announced that there will be two Campaign books and two Crusade Mission Packs for Nachmund. But if there are, you can safely assume that enough people are buying them. And unlike GT mission packs, which do have utility for many Crusade players who chose to use points rather than PL, Crusade Mission Packs have absolutely ZERO value for Matched players... Yet somehow, it seems, they are still turning enough of a profit that GW considers it worthwhile to keep banging them out.

 

I'm not saying this proves that Crusade is played as often as matched- it isn't. I'm saying that it's proof there are enough people buying Crusade exclusive products that GW considers it worthwhile to keep printing them.

 

As for options vs. a standard pick-up game: I don't object to there being a standard- but I think that's possible without removing the options we have. And in fact I'd argue based on the  anecdotal experience people who post here an on Dakka, that standard is 2k Matched. I do think it would be nice for people who play that way if there was consensus on which campaign books are going to be used- here I think there's less of a standard. I can see how one might argue that those options detract from the ability to achieve a universal pick-up standard. 

 

For the small circle of folks I play with, 25PL Crusade is the standard... But as I've already said, my situation is so atypical that the anecdote is meaningless in the big picture.

 

And finally, I've long been an advocate of a "tournament" mode similar to KT2018's Arena game. I fully support that distinction. I also don't object to blurring the lines between Crusade and open. In our Crusade campaign, we fight for territory over persistent battlefields, but sometimes you need a fight to determine territorial control alone, so the narrative doesn't necessarily suggest an appropriate mission; in these scenarios, the open war deck would be excellent, because it's easy to use with Crusade armies and agendas. In terms of incorporating the relaxed army construction rules of open in a Crusade, that's a lot harder, because strats intersect specifically with the Crusade rules in many different ways, and detachments fuel CP, which fuels strat use.

 

This is precisely why Matched play rules from GT 2022 Nachmund MP impact Crusade, despite being in a Matched play book.   

[Rik Lightstar]

Agreeing with what ThePenitentOne says here, and maybe we're not that unusual in our experiences, my favourite games of 9th edition have been Crusade games in the 25-50 PL bracket.

 

From my experiences 50 PL or 1000 points is the sweet spot for a few reasons:

• You get fewer Command Points, so Stratagems are less of an impact, they simply can't be used as often
• Fewer Command Points also means that any detachment related shenanigans have a much bigger cost implication comparative to the larger games
• You're far less able to "spam" particular units
• It's a big enough game that with the exception of some Lord of War models very few things can be "untouchable" and a 300+ point model is a serious risk if you lose it early to swingy dice
• The smaller table size discourages "castling" as it's unlikely you'll get more than a turn or two before something can get in and start chopping your guys up
• The games are quicker, much closer to the 60-90 minute bracket if everyone knows what their doing and 2 hours is very much achievable with newer players, so you can get more games in

That's not to say that Tournament and Matched play balance are bad for the game, I'm all in favour of balance tweaks for units that are either side of the bell curve. But the tournament environment and circuit boil everything down to an extreme degree such that a unit which is over costed by even a few points can be deemed "unplayable" or "trash" and any list that deviates from the "optimal build" for that faction is considered to be "useless". These are discouraging to newer and older players alike in a lot of situations as you can find a unit or list theme you like only to be repeatedly told that it's terrible and you shouldn't play it.

 

Rik

[Lord_Ikka]

I play 2k Matched most often, as the group I generally play with are middling-competitive and we test lists constantly based on that. However, I've played everything from 25PL Crusade games and 5k+ per side "Apocalypse" games (not using actual Apocalypse rules, just very large Narrative games). All have been fun, but all have also been very different in how they play. Some examples from the alternative game sizes:

 

1. In 25-50PL Crusade/Narrative games Characters can change the game. Not talking about major named characters like Druz or Gulliman, but even a standard SM captain can swing the game entirely depending on how he is used. Unlike in some Matched games/armies, having a Character just hanging around to provide buffs doesn't cut it, they usually have to get up and personal with the enemy. Makes the games very thematic and fun, with duels and heroic charges happening often.

 

2. In massive games, vehicles show up more and more, which is rare outside of a couple of specific lists in the tournament meta. Having a couple of Predators/Exorcists now doesn't act as so much of a waste of points- the enemy will be bringing tanks most likely and even the best anti-tank infantry squads can only kill so much (especially if you keep the Rule of 3). Seeing the might of a mechanized SM chapter or an AdMech maniple charge the field is really enjoyable. 

 

Now, I design my lists based on 2k Matched- that is what I enjoy playing at and since I'm aiming to go to tournaments, what I need to practice with. If you don't enjoy playing 2k, or are getting bored, I suggest Crusade. Make your army truly unique- create your own heroes and see them grow into legends. While the Crusade system has its flaws (you need to have a good person to run the crusade to make sure it goes smoothly), you can find some fun there. Or, try out a Narrative game that is heavily themed- play the Crimson Fists defending the bastions of Rynn's World, have the Cadian forces retreat to escape the Black Legion, etc... Make the game your own, you don't have to just do what everyone else does.

[phandaal]

2k point games have one advantage, which is that we get to use more of our models at a time. That is nice for people with a limited number of games each month.

 

In terms of game mode, Open War is what I have been sticking with. Generate a mission with the card deck or use something thematic from the Crusade packs.

 

Never seen anyone just build an army however they please though. Everyone uses Matched Play list building rules, because those are the standard.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I agree that playing the game takes too much time. I don't think the optional rules are the problem though. Crusade is designed for smaller point games, open is more of anything goes custom game, and narrative is an experience. Rules for those systems don't really add any time to a matched 40k game. I mean if you're looking for a shorter game time Crusade probably is a better option.  

 

The issue in my mind is stratagems.

 

I feel like most codex have 3-4 core stratagems, 4-6 situational ones, and 6-10 worthless ones. The situational ones have a large impact in game time in my experience, the game stops while you look them up, you have to find them which not only means looking through the worthless ones, but also looking through multiple sources. Once you've located them you need to decide if they're relevant and then often times they end up being underwhelming. This issue is a lot worse for new players, but I've found it discourages me from running my secondary armies. It really wouldn't surprise if stratagems add 40 minutes to a lot of games.

 

I also think the mission structure adds some time to games. There just are a lot more variables to consider. I like the concept of secondary objectives, but I think they could be streamlined. I would have liked it if the mission specific secondary objectives were required in their mission, so you were only picking two. I think that would speed things up. 

 

I really think stratagems should be dropped and rules added to unit sheets. I just don't think they add enough to the game and if a unit needs a stratagem than the unit is probably broken in the first place. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

At the end of the day, I think one of the biggest problems is that the different "modes" aren't, from a tabletop perspective, equally different ways to play the game so much as they're pared-down versions of Matched Play. From a rules perspective, that's the actual game, while Open and Narrative Play are side jobs meant to feel like options, but are experienced more like a beginner or intermediate ruleset. They'll never be accepted as the actual product because they're not really designed to be. Matched Play is, and Matched Play is a chore in 9th.

 

This is probably something GW's aware of, to some extent, but the current rules model is something they're trapped in for business reasons. So we'll likely just continue into this age of multiple alternative rulesets popping up for the increasing number of players who are exhausted with 40K's rules bloat until business conditions either allow for, or force a change in GW's approach to game design.

 

Have to say I find this to be quite far from the actual truth. I love to play Open War when it’s not a league game or I’m helping someone learn the game. I’ve found people tend to be quite open to playing these missions.

[Scribe]

I agree that playing the game takes too much time. I don't think the optional rules are the problem though. Crusade is designed for smaller point games, open is more of anything goes custom game, and narrative is an experience. Rules for those systems don't really add any time to a matched 40k game. I mean if you're looking for a shorter game time Crusade probably is a better option.  

 

The issue in my mind is stratagems.

 

I feel like most codex have 3-4 core stratagems, 4-6 situational ones, and 6-10 worthless ones. The situational ones have a large impact in game time in my experience, the game stops while you look them up, you have to find them which not only means looking through the worthless ones, but also looking through multiple sources. Once you've located them you need to decide if they're relevant and then often times they end up being underwhelming. This issue is a lot worse for new players, but I've found it discourages me from running my secondary armies. It really wouldn't surprise if stratagems add 40 minutes to a lot of games.

 

I also think the mission structure adds some time to games. There just are a lot more variables to consider. I like the concept of secondary objectives, but I think they could be streamlined. I would have liked it if the mission specific secondary objectives were required in their mission, so you were only picking two. I think that would speed things up. 

 

I really think stratagems should be dropped and rules added to unit sheets. I just don't think they add enough to the game and if a unit needs a stratagem than the unit is probably broken in the first place. 

 

Stratagems would be one of the first things I would cut.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I gotta agree with Black Blow Fly that narrative and open games aren't pared down match play games. They're both so custom that it's hard to judge where they fit in. Before covid there was a guard player who was more narratively focused and had some house rules that were unique. For example, if a model with a flamer got killed the opponent would roll dice and on 1-2 nothing would happen, 3-6 the squad that the model belonged to would take that many hits. It was a cool change he also had his own missions I didn't get a chance to play him, but he seemed to be a pretty popular guy to get games in with.

 

I would really like to see some mass streamlining of the game. I just don't feel that the optional modes do anything besides allowing for custom experiences. I will say in my limited experience with crusade I think it works better than matched play in small games because the secondary objectives are designed with 2000 point games in mind IMO.

 

I would get rid of warlord traits, relics, and stratagems. Chapter command style upgrades are fine, but I think the rest of it needs to go. 

[phandaal]

I gotta agree with Black Blow Fly that narrative and open games aren't pared down match play games. They're both so custom that it's hard to judge where they fit in. Before covid there was a guard player who was more narratively focused and had some house rules that were unique. For example, if a model with a flamer got killed the opponent would roll dice and on 1-2 nothing would happen, 3-6 the squad that the model belonged to would take that many hits. It was a cool change he also had his own missions I didn't get a chance to play him, but he seemed to be a pretty popular guy to get games in with.

 

I would really like to see some mass streamlining of the game. I just don't feel that the optional modes do anything besides allowing for custom experiences. I will say in my limited experience with crusade I think it works better than matched play in small games because the secondary objectives are designed with 2000 point games in mind IMO.

 

I would get rid of warlord traits, relics, and stratagems. Chapter command style upgrades are fine, but I think the rest of it needs to go. 

 

Never had a problem getting non-Matched games. They do take a bit longer to find someone because most people expect Matched Play.

 

Once you are actually playing them, they are generally quicker because people just play whatever the mission objective is rather than gaming their secondaries.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

I feel like most codex have 3-4 core stratagems, 4-6 situational ones, and 6-10 worthless ones. The situational ones have a large impact in game time in my experience, the game stops while you look them up, you have to find them which not only means looking through the worthless ones, but also looking through multiple sources. Once you've located them you need to decide if they're relevant and then often times they end up being underwhelming. This issue is a lot worse for new players, but I've found it discourages me from running my secondary armies. It really wouldn't surprise if stratagems add 40 minutes to a lot of games.

 

I have homemade decks of colour coded strat cards.

 

I also have decks of homemade unit cards that also track my Crusade achievements and adjustments. These are stored in digital format so they can be updated between games and reprinted with the most up to date info each time they are used. They include all of the rules for the options I use, and none of the rules I don't. In game, when I mark tallies or use tokens, they go on the card, not beside the models.

 

Regarding strat cards, I remove all the ones I know for sure I'm not going to use from the deck. It usually leaves me with 10-12 cards in my hand to choose from. From this small selection, I usually place them face down on the card of the unit that is likely to use them during my opponents turn. By the time my turn comes it goes pretty fast- I know what to flip and when to flip it.

 

I haven't consulted a codex during a game since early 8th for anything. It's a bit of work up front, and a bit more between games, but I don't know why more people don't do it.

 

And as you've pointed out, homemade decks work better than the stuff you buy- a set of GW strat cards really sucks when you get a campaign book or a White Dwarf that has a strat you want and there's no card for it. Then you end up adding a single homemade card to your sexy GW deck and it just feels wrong. Plus, with the money you save on those decks, you can buy the White Dwarf or supplement in question.

 

(Same with dice, come to think of it. I don't understand why anyone would buy dice from GW. D6's are the cheapest dice anywhere. A quick Amazon search yields unit prices as low a 4 cents per die- and I don't think I've ever used a tape measure that didn't come from a buck store. Having said all that, I'd still buy B&C dice though) 

Edited January 14, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Oh I agree ThePenitentOne play aids are great. I should make them for my secondary armies. The thing with stratagems though is even when you know them it takes time. My main army is Space Wolves I basically have 5 stratagems that I rotate between I don't bother to look up the situational ones. That said I have to announce that I'm using one, tell my opponent what it is, then they have to figure it into the other decisions that they make. It's just really easy for each stratagem to add a minute or two to the game time, and in 2000 point game you might stop play 15 times and your opponent may do so as well. That's a lot of time, I'd rather see abilities go back onto unit entries and have a quicker experience.