The Most Important Thing I Feel That 40k Forgot

[BitsHammer]

Lately I've been seeing a lot of talk online about 40k game balance and it made me nostalgic for past editions and I realized that GW has dropped something from the rulebooks around the start of 8th or 9th:

 

 

Now while I'm sure everyone spotted the "rules are guidelines" bit at the end (which I feel is the sort of energy people should approach the game with anyways) the thing I actually want to draw attention to is in the second paragraph: "Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players - not just the victor - have a good time." It's this presentation of the game as something that everyone involved with should be able to enjoy that I feel is missing from the rules. That spirit of "this should be fun for everyone" is missing in the current edition and honestly I think it opened the game up to the idea that winning is the most important thing changing the expectation among players as well as the general tone of the game.

 

And maybe I'm wrong, and this isn't a thing that actually has affected the game but I feel like not including this sort of statement of intent about the game being something people should make an effort for everyone to be able to enjoy has changed the tone of the game. And I admit that maybe it's just my perception, but I feel that these sorts of statements of intent are important for the tone of how the community sees the game and removing them was a mistake.

[Slave to Darkness]

Not just 40k but GW in general I think. I miss the tongue in cheek humor with a cheeky little innuendo now and again, cracked me up when I was a kid and they were running a series of WD articles for Fantasy set on 'Thorskinsons Island', and those little illustrations they had in some articles that were kinda silly, like the one of a Bretonnian Knight at a tourny and he had a maidens undergarments tied to his lance. :lol:  

[BitsHammer]

Yeah, GW should have never tried to drop the humor from their settings because that was what provided the points of light that made the "grimdark" work. You can't have a dark, gritty setting without any levity at all because all that does it force you to adjust to the dark and become numb to it. Levity (through comedy, hope, ect) makes the darkness hit harder because it keeps you from ever adjusting to the darkness so it stands out stronger in contrast.

[Slave to Darkness]

Yeah, GW should have never tried to drop the humor from their settings because that was what provided the points of light that made the "grimdark" work. You can't have a dark, gritty setting without any levity at all because all that does it force you to adjust to the dark and become numb to it. Levity (through comedy, hope, ect) makes the darkness hit harder because it keeps you from ever adjusting to the darkness so it stands out stronger in contrast.

Someone tell that to GW HQ... 

[Jings]

Yeah, GW should have never tried to drop the humor from their settings because that was what provided the points of light that made the "grimdark" work. You can't have a dark, gritty setting without any levity at all because all that does it force you to adjust to the dark and become numb to it. Levity (through comedy, hope, ect) makes the darkness hit harder because it keeps you from ever adjusting to the darkness so it stands out stronger in contrast.

 

Levity, yes. Hope, no. 40K is at its best when things are so bleak it becomes hilarious. Like when they did a grusome mass klling in one fo the Beast Arises books where the author spends like 3 pages describing mountains crushing an entire army just to do a 'blink of an eye' pun. 

[BitsHammer]

 

Yeah, GW should have never tried to drop the humor from their settings because that was what provided the points of light that made the "grimdark" work. You can't have a dark, gritty setting without any levity at all because all that does it force you to adjust to the dark and become numb to it. Levity (through comedy, hope, ect) makes the darkness hit harder because it keeps you from ever adjusting to the darkness so it stands out stronger in contrast.

 

Levity, yes. Hope, no. 40K is at its best when things are so bleak it becomes hilarious. Like when they did a grusome mass klling in one fo the Beast Arises books where the author spends like 3 pages describing mountains crushing an entire army just to do a 'blink of an eye' pun. 

 

Nah, you can hand someone a lit match of hope only to snuff it out later forcing them into pitch darkness out of nowhere. Works great for horror for example.

[MARK0SIAN]

To be fair, the first people to forget that both players should be having fun were the rules writers. Just look at some of the stuff in the codexes, how anyone is meant to have any fun playing against some of those rules is beyond me. Edited February 24, 2022 by MARK0SIAN

[Firedrake Cordova]

"Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players - not just the victor - have a good time."

For me, that is such an important statement - it may just be my mentality, but if both players aren't having fun, what's the point in playing? :)

 

(and yes, different people have different ideas of what is fun, which is that's actually quite important to understand, too!)

[Jings]

 

 

Yeah, GW should have never tried to drop the humor from their settings because that was what provided the points of light that made the "grimdark" work. You can't have a dark, gritty setting without any levity at all because all that does it force you to adjust to the dark and become numb to it. Levity (through comedy, hope, ect) makes the darkness hit harder because it keeps you from ever adjusting to the darkness so it stands out stronger in contrast.

 

Levity, yes. Hope, no. 40K is at its best when things are so bleak it becomes hilarious. Like when they did a grusome mass klling in one fo the Beast Arises books where the author spends like 3 pages describing mountains crushing an entire army just to do a 'blink of an eye' pun. 

 

Nah, you can hand someone a lit match of hope only to snuff it out later forcing them into pitch darkness out of nowhere. Works great for horror for example.

 

 

Yeah you're right, read 'hope' then couldn't see the forest for the trees. Best part of the example I posted was the 200 some pages of build-up to that point that contained a corpulent serving of hope for what turned out ultimately to be a lost cause. 

[Orange Knight]

The "Most Important Rule" is what made 40k so special to me - The fact that the game was about co-operation between players, and not just competition.

 

I agree that this mentality has been replaced by the attitude most commonly displayed by the competitive crowd. The game has become more clinical, cold, and more focused on army building.

[Dark Shepherd]

Yup. Armies should be fun to play with and against

[phandaal]

To be fair, the first people to forget that both players should be having fun were the rules writers. Just look at some of the stuff in the codexes, how anyone is meant to have any fun playing against some of those rules is beyond me.

Said something to this effect in the survey GW sent out a while back. That there is someone on the receiving end of every new rule GW comes out with.

 

Sometimes it feels like new rules treat "the opponent" like they are a video game NPC who will just respawn over and over again for you to beat on.

[Orange Knight]

 

To be fair, the first people to forget that both players should be having fun were the rules writers. Just look at some of the stuff in the codexes, how anyone is meant to have any fun playing against some of those rules is beyond me.

Said something to this effect in the survey GW sent out a while back. That there is someone on the receiving end of every new rule GW comes out with.

 

Sometimes it feels like new rules treat "the opponent" like they are a video game NPC who will just respawn over and over again for you to beat on.

Unfortunately I have seen an attitude that has literally been echoed on this forum, that basically amounts to:

 

"It's not my responsibility to create fun with the game. It's on GW to write better rules"

 

Sure, I agree that GW should and could write better rules, but we are all ultimately responsible to creating an enjoyable experience. Too many people don't see it this way.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

To be fair, the first people to forget that both players should be having fun were the rules writers. Just look at some of the stuff in the codexes, how anyone is meant to have any fun playing against some of those rules is beyond me.

Said something to this effect in the survey GW sent out a while back. That there is someone on the receiving end of every new rule GW comes out with.

 

Sometimes it feels like new rules treat "the opponent" like they are a video game NPC who will just respawn over and over again for you to beat on.

Unfortunately I have seen an attitude that has literally been echoed on this forum, that basically amounts to:

 

"It's not my responsibility to create fun with the game. It's on GW to write better rules"

 

Sure, I agree that GW should and could write better rules, but we are all ultimately responsible to creating an enjoyable experience. Too many people don't see it this way.

 

Yup, it's a cooperative experience. One can't play the game alone, and should endeavor to share the fun instead of trying to horde it.

[Slave to Darkness]

Oh when I play I play to win, but I try to make it fun for all involved. 

 

I miss Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson on the rules team, their codex books were always good back in the day. 

[phandaal]

 

 

To be fair, the first people to forget that both players should be having fun were the rules writers. Just look at some of the stuff in the codexes, how anyone is meant to have any fun playing against some of those rules is beyond me.

Said something to this effect in the survey GW sent out a while back. That there is someone on the receiving end of every new rule GW comes out with.

 

Sometimes it feels like new rules treat "the opponent" like they are a video game NPC who will just respawn over and over again for you to beat on.

Unfortunately I have seen an attitude that has literally been echoed on this forum, that basically amounts to:

 

"It's not my responsibility to create fun with the game. It's on GW to write better rules"

 

Sure, I agree that GW should and could write better rules, but we are all ultimately responsible to creating an enjoyable experience. Too many people don't see it this way.

 

 

We had a local beginners league dry up because a few experienced gamers decided to join and bring their noob crusher lists. After crushing a few noobs, the noobs stopped showing up to get crushed. Saw one guy nearly table his opponent in 1.5 rounds and then act surprised and disappointed when his opponent conceded. Something like "wait, really?" The other guy said something like "well you are going to kill all the rest of my stuff next turn anyway."

 

So yeah, some people really do not seem to comprehend that they are playing against another real person, even if that person is right there in front of them.

 

On the other hand, people are gonna be people, and rules designed for people should take that into account. Games Workshop has been doing this for decades, and they do seem to recognize that some people will squeeze every ounce of advantage from their rules - even if it makes no sense i.e. those AdMech jump troops that could never actually get attacked.

[Brother Christopher]

The premise of this thread, as well as most responses serve, in a way, as a confirmation that something really has changed when it comes to people's attitude to the game. I have felt for a long time that there's a shift towards a more competitive or even cut-throat mindset, promoted by a focus on tournaments. However, I always assumed that this is only my gloomy outlook on the current state of the game.

 

I do feel that right now, there is a way stronger emphasis on list building and rules stacking than it was back when I most enjoyed the game, in 5th edition. In earlier editions, I felt that the game worked better as a pretext to use your miniatures on the tabletop. Now, there is definitely more attention to pre-game stuff, like getting the right combination of units to have the most deadly army possible.

 

In it's current state, the game with no alternating activations is way more deadly than ever, especially with each codex getting seemingly more powerful weapons than the last one, as well as the introduction of mortal wounds. With the proliferation of rules that allow to decimate a large portion of the opponent's army after a successful roll-off, it is up to players to self-regulate if they want a more casual/fun kind of game, which may be difficult and which is very problematic - the game should offer a balanced rules framework, rather than players who sometimes have to handicap themselves. Counting on others, sometimes strangers, to do the right thing is problematic, especially since there are people who don't care about others' feelings or fun. This, together with the poor rule-writing, GW's ineptitude to balance out the dozens of units and emphasising the de-emphasising (or not promoting) the less competitive game modes most certainly creates an environment for an unpleasant gaming experience.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think part of why the attitude has changed is due to how people are exposed to the hobby. A lot of the content creators view things through a competitive lens. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but I think of new players get exposed to that from the start. It's weird for me because when I started this hobby I was part of small group, and it seems like a lot of new players are coming into the hobby solo. So even recommending things can be tough because they don't even know what they like yet lol. I'd like to see more content creators embrace campaigns but I may be in the minority on the front.

[Dark Shepherd]

I think there might also be a factor of how little gametime so many people had over the last 2 years, so a lot of focus is on non playing aspects and/or tournaments

[Brother Carpenter]

This has been going on for quite some time. One my first gt the plastic necron range had just been released. I think it was in 4th ed and i got tabled in turn 3, i lost all models due to gauss weapons.

But I totally agree the most important rule should make its return. And I miss the funky fail rules. Triple six on your termie ac makes it jam for the rest of the game. Self repair on the rhino dont touch that button..waagh, animosity rules in orc units, ect it made the game just that more lighthearted.

[Valkia the Bloody]

Interesting point.

Yeah, I have noticed this was missing, but was not thinking too much about it.

 

Well, I am now nearly 25 years in the hobby.

And my motto has always been fun first, winning second.

I try to have my army painted, I try to do some role play and name my characters and I try to also act as part of my army when I am playing.

Basically, my army is kind of my cosplay.

This can be truly amazing when you have an opponent who plays along. I had some truly memorable and amazing games and made some great friends.

But there are also people who do not play to have fun.

They just crunch numbers and I just do not see the point.

They could as well sit in a corner and play with an excel spreadsheet.

Some people become super annoyed when I do my role-play and scream my battle cries and whisper in voices and talk to my characters.

They even hate it when you let out screams of joy or despair after you had some amazing roll and some amazing things happened on the field.

Like one time when some really unlikely scenes happened and my hero, completely impossible, managed to destroy a Necron monolith.

This is not something that happens every day.

I mean, what is the point? The word "play" should imply that there is an element of "fun" involved. Otherwise, I might as well go to work.

I have never understood that mentality.

I spend hours and hours painting a great army, think up background stories for the characters and I am very proud to present and share this with other people, and then some people are just annoyed at you for showing enthusiasm and enjoyment. When confronted with these people, I just completely close up and try to end the game as soon and as efficiently as possible. It is just not worth it.

No sagas sung, no skulls collected, no scrolls of honour filled.

On the other hand, what is more amazing than having two people play a game, share amazing stories, really LIVING the adventure that plays out on the board.

I play to have fun. Winning comes second. I actually prefer going through an epic story to getting a medal in the end.

I even cheer for the opponent when he manages a suitably amazing feat.

But yeah, I have accepted during my 25 years of hobby that I am just not everyone's cup of tea.

[alfred_the_great]

So, TL;DR (of the internet) is that it’s GW’s fault for making individuals toxic players. <shrug>

[BitsHammer]

I think part of why the attitude has changed is due to how people are exposed to the hobby. A lot of the content creators view things through a competitive lens. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but I think of new players get exposed to that from the start. It's weird for me because when I started this hobby I was part of small group, and it seems like a lot of new players are coming into the hobby solo. So even recommending things can be tough because they don't even know what they like yet lol. I'd like to see more content creators embrace campaigns but I may be in the minority on the front.

I stand by that GW needs to make a sizeable amount of their event coverage tie into narrative events and use their streaming platform to show off narrative games over only running matched play and GT missions.

[phandaal]

Interesting point.

Yeah, I have noticed this was missing, but was not thinking too much about it.

 

Well, I am now nearly 25 years in the hobby.

And my motto has always been fun first, winning second.

I try to have my army painted, I try to do some role play and name my characters and I try to also act as part of my army when I am playing.

Basically, my army is kind of my cosplay.

This can be truly amazing when you have an opponent who plays along. I had some truly memorable and amazing games and made some great friends.

But there are also people who do not play to have fun.

They just crunch numbers and I just do not see the point.

They could as well sit in a corner and play with an excel spreadsheet.

Some people become super annoyed when I do my role-play and scream my battle cries and whisper in voices and talk to my characters.

They even hate it when you let out screams of joy or despair after you had some amazing roll and some amazing things happened on the field.

Like one time when some really unlikely scenes happened and my hero, completely impossible, managed to destroy a Necron monolith.

This is not something that happens every day.

I mean, what is the point? The word "play" should imply that there is an element of "fun" involved. Otherwise, I might as well go to work.

I have never understood that mentality.

I spend hours and hours painting a great army, think up background stories for the characters and I am very proud to present and share this with other people, and then some people are just annoyed at you for showing enthusiasm and enjoyment. When confronted with these people, I just completely close up and try to end the game as soon and as efficiently as possible. It is just not worth it.

No sagas sung, no skulls collected, no scrolls of honour filled.

On the other hand, what is more amazing than having two people play a game, share amazing stories, really LIVING the adventure that plays out on the board.

I play to have fun. Winning comes second. I actually prefer going through an epic story to getting a medal in the end.

I even cheer for the opponent when he manages a suitably amazing feat.

But yeah, I have accepted during my 25 years of hobby that I am just not everyone's cup of tea.

 

Celebrating unlikely events is one of the best parts of the game. Played recently against a Grey Knights player who is much better than me. The game was over by the end of turn 3 (really it was an uphill battle from the start), but we both got a kick out of my Interrogator-Chaplain, Gristle McThornbody, managing to weather several rounds of psychic shenanigans before finally taking out his warlord in single combat.

 

He won fair and square, but the game was still fun for everyone because we focused on the fun stuff rather than only thinking about power combos or crushing the other guy.

[BitsHammer]

So, TL;DR (of the internet) is that it’s GW’s fault for making individuals toxic players. <shrug>

Not entirely. Just their fault for not better communicating the intent on how people should approach the game and encouraging sportsmanship.