Levels of Expansion for 40K

[YorkNecromancer]

I've been thinking about 'Age of Sigmar', balance, and the constant calls for 40K to be one specific kind of game. That it has to be one kind of game, and that that's just how it is. That the game can be perfectly balanced, perfectly competitive and perfectly able to forge a narrative, all while juggling over fifteen unique codicies and their supplemental companion books.

I've said it before, but I think it would be nice if there was acknowledgement that actually, what various players want are actually wildly different games. That they can, sadly, be mutually exclusive. And that in truth (whisper it) there is no one right way to play the game; there are as many right ways as there are people involved, plus a few more besides.

So what if there were four expansions for the game?

1.) Kill-Team. Designed for entry-level pick up play, this is a skirmish game for matches of 500 points, designed to be played in games lasting about 45 minutes. It's also got dedicated levelling up/campaign rules, like Necromunda or XCOM.
2.) 40K 'standard'; the game as it is at the moment, to be played 'as is'.
3.) 40K Tournament. Designed to be played purely competitively. Minimal-to-no Forging The Narrative, no campaign rules in the story sense, but a dedicated rebalancing of armies, restrictions on certain units/army combos/what have you. This type of game plays more like an eSport.
4.) 40K Narrative. Closer in tone to 'Age of Sigmar', with full rules for a variety of campaign styles, including the frankly superb rules from the FW HH series of books (especially the 'Victory Is Vengeance' campaign from HH3). Rebalancing of armies to make them more 'fluffy'; far more use of Allies/Unbound, with dedicated Warzone books. Every year, there would be a single Warzone book, with shiny new characters and miniatures who do not get rules in any of the other games; the narrative of that warzone would play out across the year, with December bringing the campaign's end. After that, these new characters and models would be incorporated into tournament play.

1, 2, and 4 would be produced much as books are presently.

3 would be a 'living rulebook', with adaptions and balances brought in regularly to rebalance armies as time went on. Players wouldn't buy a book; they would buy a subscription to an app, say the price of a codex once a year. The rule changes from tournament play would be gradually rolled out over game types 1,2 and 4 as they became necessary/relevant.

All four games would be official, running parallel to each other; you would have to agree with players ahead of time what you want to play.

I think it could work.

[Wolfshade]

I might like to split 2 into different levels, the same way that 5th had normal 5th then Apocalypse

[Charon]

It is still beyond me why people seem to think that a ruleset dictates if a game can be played as part of a campaign or a narrative scenario.

You do not need "aos style" to play narrative, neither is it impossible to play campaigns with a tournament proof rulework.

You can basically do it wall if you go RPG style. Basic rules, advanced rules and optional rules with (at least) monthly errata and FAQ

If you look at the average RPG group you can be sure that around 30% of the rules in the book get ignored completely because they hinder gameplay or result in boring book keeping. Another 10 % get altered in order to fit with the rest or further gameplay and another 10 % are house rules that get added over time.
I see no reason why Warhammer can't do the same.
I can understand tournament players asking for more balanced codices as they do a lot of work in creating houserules for their event and with a better codex is way less effort to houserule a few outliers.

[daboarder]

gotta push that incompatibility Charon, afterall, its the logic fallacy that so many of the standard arguments rely on to support the often professed idea that balance is a dirty concept.

would like some updated killteam rules though, not a huge fan of the current ones, the original ones were cool if clunky

[Morgrim]

It is still beyond me why people seem to think that a ruleset dictates if a game can be played as part of a campaign or a narrative scenario.

You do not need "aos style" to play narrative, neither is it impossible to play campaigns with a tournament proof rulework.

You can basically do it wall if you go RPG style. Basic rules, advanced rules and optional rules with (at least) monthly errata and FAQ

If you look at the average RPG group you can be sure that around 30% of the rules in the book get ignored completely because they hinder gameplay or result in boring book keeping. Another 10 % get altered in order to fit with the rest or further gameplay and another 10 % are house rules that get added over time.
I see no reason why Warhammer can't do the same.
I can understand tournament players asking for more balanced codices as they do a lot of work in creating houserules for their event and with a better codex is way less effort to houserule a few outliers.

Convenience for pick up games, mostly. If you want a narrative-style game, which tend to be more fun and forgiving for lower skilled players, it's so much easier if you can grab the rules and know what you're doing without having to discuss houserules first. Houserules can certainly work! But they work better when everyone knows each other.

For example I started playing in 5th ed. But none of the people I learnt with liked the wound allocation rules and we felt they slowed play down. So we used 3rd ed rules for wounding. (Due almost everyone playing codexes that didn't get updated in 4th, 4th ed kind of got skipped.) And when playing pickup games outside that group it was surprising how often I could say "hey the wound allocation rules are clunky, do you want to use 3rd ed ones?" and get an affirmative. I didn't have to explain house rules or balance or justify my request because almost everyone knew what I was talking about. We were just swapping one thing for another.

Having a narrative-style codex would do similar, by having a familiar base to build off that all players would know, and making it easy to discuss minor tweaks before a game. Because if a houserule takes more than 30 seconds to explain it's unlikely to happen.

[Charon]

Convenience for pick up games, mostly. If you want a narrative-style game, which tend to be more fun and forgiving for lower skilled players, it's so much easier if you can grab the rules and know what you're doing without having to discuss houserules first. Houserules can certainly work! But they work better when everyone knows each other.

And how do you communicate your narrative scenario to a player you do not know? Does he read your mind and is instantly informed that you intent to have a narrative game on an unstable vulcano world where you made up random tables anc charts for catastrophes?
Narrative gaming is the absolute opposite of a pickup game. Narrative gaming needs and creates a story that is more than "fancy a 1500 points game against Eldar?"

For example I started playing in 5th ed. But none of the people I learnt with liked the wound allocation rules and we felt they slowed play down. So we used 3rd ed rules for wounding. (Due almost everyone playing codexes that didn't get updated in 4th, 4th ed kind of got skipped.) And when playing pickup games outside that group it was surprising how often I could say "hey the wound allocation rules are clunky, do you want to use 3rd ed ones?" and get an affirmative. I didn't have to explain house rules or balance or justify my request because almost everyone knew what I was talking about. We were just swapping one thing for another.

All fine and exactly what I mentioned before. You do not need a new "codex" for each army to do this.
Basic rules: wound allocation from 3rd
Advanced rules: wound allocation from 7th

Having a narrative-style codex would do similar, by having a familiar base to build off that all players would know, and making it easy to discuss minor tweaks before a game. Because if a houserule takes more than 30 seconds to explain it's unlikely to happen.

Narrative gaming is not about the basic rules it is about creating a story where you bend rules, introduce new rules or delete rules to further your story. This is not about houserules but rules that only exist in this single game. No book could ever hope to contain everything you can make up for your game.

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno that it's something the company really needs to delineate.

Tournaments already offer their own tweaks and restrictions.

Less formalised play? It's really between the two players. The four broad proposals above are already part of the game arranging process. Once upon a time, it was a really straight forward 'how many points?' to be agreed. Now? Slightly longer - how many points? Mind if I field a formation? Happy with Lords of War? Allies yay or nay?

It's a community game to do with as we please. Treat GWs as a 'serving suggestion' and then flavour to your own tastes and preferences.

Me? I'm game for pretty much whatever, as long as I know in advance. If you want to field a Lord of War, I can select my army to give me at least a fighting chance. Formations? Well, there's one or two I'd prefer to veto ta, namely those that give you lots of free upgrades - at least, until I've expanded my own Mechanicum collection to be able to field my take - and I will absolutely return the favour. I may enjoy a win as much as the next gamer, but I'm just as interested in the game being fun for all involved.

If you've got a tournament coming up and want to practice against their rules pack - that's cool too - just, as ever, let me know in advance.

Points? I'm never really comfortable playing my army at its full size. I don't enjoy writing a list to maximise my points level, doubly so if you happen to have a larger collection, and can therefore field a more bespoke force than 'just bung it all on'.

In return? All I ask is the same level of consideration. I've got four Knights, because I love the models, and have always liked their background, ever since my own personal Golden Age of Titan Legions. If you're up for the challenge, I can totes field all four. If you'd rather not, I'll leave them on the shelf.

It's all about respect for your opponent. As you say Yorkie, there is no correct way to do this hobby, so we've all just got to work around each other, reaching a compromise with every opponent.

And the best bit? In all my years gaming in store, and my three occasions working for GW in various stores, only very, very rarely have I seen someone turn up for games night with a knowingly beardy army without their intended opponents foreknowledge - and on some the rare occurrences, it's because said intended opponent wasn't able to make it, and they've not brought an alternate force.

Overall, we tend to be an entirely reasonable bunch.

[YorkNecromancer]

And how do you communicate your narrative scenario to a player you do not know?

There's this thing we have called 'talking'.

Now, you might think I am being sarcastic there; I'm not. [url=http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html]Effective communication is something I have a very strong opinion on.[/url] Seriously, how do you play games without talking to your opponent beforehand?

You want to know how we do it? It doesn't need a massive amount of pre-prepared stuff, or a huge amount of planning.

So: game starts. When setting up scenery, I have a collection of 'character pieces'. These are buildings and things I've made to represent Critical Objectives over the years. I've made generators, summoning circles, communications arrays, ammo dumps, all kinds of stuff. You don't to make them - you can just write 'ammo dump' on a bit of paper and use that.

Then, you discuss the scenario with your opponent. Say I've put down three generators and a communications array. My opponent, she's playing Astra Militarum, and I'm playing Deathwatch.

So the narrative we forge goes as follows:

The Deathwatch have become convinced her Militarum are heretical, and need to kill them all. Her Militarum are not, though. So, she needs to send a message to the Imperium to cancel the attack. If she can hold at least one generator (to supply power) and all the communications arrays, she instantly wins. If I destroy either all generators or all the arrays, I instantly win.

Boom. Narrative forged. If we feel like making things more interesting, we add more stipulations - techpriests/marines can repair smashed arrays and generators. Or if her Commander can get into assault, Challenge my Commander, and survive a single round of combat, she instantly wins as her Commander persuades the Deathwatch's leadership to stand down.

We could add other elements. Maybe there's a Vindicare assassin on the board with orders to kill both Commanders due to miscommunications. On my turns, I control the model, on her turns, she does.

None of these things would take more than five minutes to discuss/set up. If it turns out that they seem to be favouring one army or the other overmuch, we just talk it over, and rebalance mid-game.

Now, would I recommend Forging a Narrative in a tournament? No, because a tournament's goals are completely different. But you know what? If you came up against someone you knew, nothing could stop you doing it.

Talking. It's the most powerful tool at a player's disposal, and I worry that a lot of people want to take that pre-game discussion out of the game. Like, if you're not gaming to make new friends, then seriously: what the f**k reason does anyone have to game? Using other people's defeats as a sharpening stone for one's ego? Because if that's a person's reason, they're probably a psychopath.

It's all about respect for your opponent. As you say Yorkie, there is no correct way to do this hobby, so we've all just got to work around each other, reaching a compromise with every opponent.

Yup. Respect for one's opponent and respect for oneself. I'd clear away my army with a smile, and let the guy have the win if he wants it so bad he's going to be arrogant about it. We none of us have enough time living, and I've got more important things to do in my life than waste a single moment of it with a bell end.

[Charon]

There's this thing we have called 'talking'.

Now, you might think I am being sarcastic there; I'm not.

As "not having to talk through anything" was the whole point of Morgrims post I do not see how your answer is contributing to his "problem"

it's so much easier if you can grab the rules and know what you're doing without having to discuss houserules first.

Because if a houserule takes more than 30 seconds to explain it's unlikely to happen.

[Alaric]

Its not just gaming that social contratcts must be forged as to me thats what it is. When you go out with friends to eat you all decide the specifics. Even with dnd I believe most DMs will talk to the PCs as to what type of PC they wanna be.
To say that you should be able to just show up and play willy nilly seems off to me unless its in a tournament settung of course. And even there I have no issue with comp Cuz the guy putting it on often doesn't get to play which to me is the "ultimate" sacrifice. So if he wants restrictions you dont like, put on yer own damn tournament.
The idea is cool but unless its gonna generate a whack load a money I can't see it happening. I think AOS can tank in peace and they will keep chugging along, they have fw after all.

Da have u not read the zone mortalis rules? I hear they r good, haven't tried meself.