what kind of game is 40k, really?

more than anything else, i’m beginning to discover exactly how complicated a question that is. seeing the huge shift in population from WHF to AoS, and how accepted versus rejected the new game has been in various populations. each population has a different realm of expectations, requirements, and needs -- and they aren’t always compatible. partially, i think, because the new game is (and the old game was) different for various groups and individuals -- almost as if it's a meeting-point between many ideas.

there’s plenty that’s been written by better people than me about the differences between the game-players and the painters, the hobby-centric and the play-centric. but, just like there are many styles of painting with varied aesthetics, there are different kind of games we draw from when we choose to play one game or another.

it comes mostly down to two kinds.

one is the historical game. stories about the pedigree of RPGs always mention the creation of Chainmail as a wargame, and the pivotal romans-vs-celts matchup where one player claimed that their Druid could call down lightning strikes, and a case was made for including magic. While evocative as an image, it’s anecdotal, it ignores the effects of the Braunstein games, and gives no such inspirational moment for a host of other contemporaries springing up at the time. but the link is undeniable -- wargaming has a long established history and is anchored in real events and practical needs, and somewhere along the line someone decided to add in monsters and magic until we have what we have today.

in 40k, you can research the provided information for a number of regiments, chapters, cults, crusades, and craftworlds. you can faithfully recreate the units commanded by specific names figures at specific battles. if you wanted to have your force themed around the Black Templars that leant support during the most recent war for Armageddon. the fluff is deep and detailed enough to do so. and perhaps that’s why the Horus Heresy armies are appealing to more veteran players -- they are more established in career and schedule (and wallet) to have the time and devotion enough for such a recreation.

on the other hand, much like writing your own novel or customizing the character you will play through a game, you can also choose to create something new. you can do a counts-as army with a creative theme, a lesser-known faction with a new bent, or a from-scratch idea that is wholly your own. it’s full control, adaptable, and creative. it’s a game of artistic and creative outlet, the ability to make new product within a safe format -- and the ability to then play an interactive game with the pieces. even this is multitiered, having even novice painters and simple matchups on one end and artistic geniuses and complex ranges of high-points conflict with the other. add in various styles of play (free for all, low boys, narrative-driven, same-terrain, apocalypse, killteams, traditional FOC, highlander, etc) and 40k-as-game is definitely a parallel to 40k-as-hobby with its range.

coming out of this, you have the players-for-play-only -- those who look at painting and modelling as a burden, who do 3-color slapdash before a tournament (and one of the 3 is black primer, a second is a drybrush of silver) or contract professionals. it's not about the fluff nor about the hobby, but just solely about play. sadly, as much as this population is distinct, they fit into either category -- often they are either seduced by the lore, or succumb to the reaches of a personalized game.

one is a recreation based on facts and accessible recorded data, striving for authenticity and detail, and in direct correlation to specific individuals whose names are also available. the other is the personal contribution game, where the world is used by the player to create a place for a story… sometimes for groups or individuals that do not exist previously. both are adding to the volume and complexity of the parent world, though some treat them more like fanfiction and others more like a fictional biography.

one requires the use of special characters, detailed paint schemes, and recorded specifics. the other’s specifics become relevant when the player creates them.

one is attached to a ton of fluff, a legacy, and an identity. the other is used to create a sense of personal significance. 40k has become a meeting-point of these two game styles -- the extensive background and detail compounding with the volume of options. it might differ by player, by local meta, and by army… but there’s a bit of both involved regularly. some of the most amazing armies i have seen have been outstanding because of either an adherence to specific detail, or because they reject convention and do something wholly new.

perhaps i should say “a bit of both involved, though irregularly.” take for example, the current state of CSM.

no other army best describes the feeling of confusion in design and purpose that the game contains than post-4th CSM. the worst potential bad guys, kept from being too powerful by point-imbalances. the traitors to the very galaxy, who nonetheless are underequipped to handle actual danger. and through it all, the longtime player’s lament of “if only we had our old codex back!”

the 3.5’s customizability was seen as a powerful and hard to understand (for an opponent, at least) tool, unfair to play against and too varied for a newb to learn. plus the current fad on release was the short-lived streamlining (as pioneered by the DA’s first full-length codex, a fun book that was nonetheless a well-rounded failure for years). sure, i’d love to go back to the mix-and-match HQs of that book… but what i’d rather have are the special lists. the option to field a functional and fun Night Lords list, Thousand Sons that weren’t terrible, World Eaters that were good at what they do. the focus suddenly became “let’s have all the disparate warbands being a thing rather than any unification” -- and they took away the historicals portion of the game.

without any attachment to their history, there could be no Sevatar leading NL bandits near the Ghoul Stars, no feverishly orating Word Bearer zealots praying daemons into being, no Iron Warriors capable of conducting sieges better than other legions. instead, it was much more about the “create your own” with confusingly fewer options. and examples of bandit-style SM units (that would work better using “counts as” rules from SM armies anyway) to push a new more fractured aesthetic instead of any sort of anchor to the past. instead, due to badly-managed points in an effort to avoid the (perceived) overpower of the previous incarnation, few units or items worked properly and many were forced to play lash-lists or nurgle bikers or other similar spam in order to have a chance. it lost its identity, then its history, and finally its cohesion. as a result, they are chronically underrepresented even still, and though they have gotten a ton of new options they are still nowhere near as popular as they used to be.

i had started an old Thousand Sons force, played it a grand total of once (my worst crushing defeat ever, vs Necrons, on my living room floor). i loved the idea of an army that was essentially the ghosts of marines, led by sorcerer-kings, lockstepping into battle and shrugging off damage to their shells. after the 4th ed codex, however, the list was virtually unplayable… and that has not really changed. to really not get trounced, they just do not have the tools needed in-theme. thus, the project got shelved, and i’ve never gotten to the cooler elements (screamer-riding bikers, disc-raptors, half-daemon havocs, etc). i'd love to come back to them, but there's no point until the rules give them some adequate firepower.

the historical style still lives partially with the inclusion of Ahriman as a special character… but even that is complicated from a fluff perspective. thus it’s all about the personal chapter -- as the 4th ed was billed. perhaps they haven’t really known what to do with chaos for a while. perhaps the design team has had conflicts of direction, or executive meddling making too much of an issue throughout. more likely, though, with all the SCs wrapped up in the 13th crusade, the EoT event of years ago having pushed forward the fluff without being acknowledged in doing so, and the complexity of retconning/acknowledging that event while not pulling an End-Times of their own (which would really mess everything up) is complicated. though, at least in science fiction, the pre-included Ordo Chronos includes a failsafe to keep the AoS problems from being ported into 40k.

i digress.

significant changes, particularly ones that invalidate entire types of armies, are often met with anger. maybe not “furious tirade and burn my army on youtube” levels (unless mistakes are made, such a canary in the coal mine such as DeathHolyDeath's video should never show up), but anger enough to keep people from warmly embracing the changes. because it’s not just a game -- it’s a hobby. some people paint, some collect, some play -- and people do each of these in a variety of ways. we need to remember that it’s bigger than our moment of reference.

some of that hobby is the desire for authenticity -- to create something that already exists. i know no less than four people in my local area who have part or all of “the Ultramarines 2nd company” or “the Dark Angels 3rd company” or the like exactly as it appears in the fluff (i have the DA 4th… but i’ve customized it a bit), and they did research into what each squad would be equipped with (and who cares if the sources were pre-grav, they go as detailed). some of them are display pieces, some are actively used, often they become something in between the two.

some of the hobby is the desire for effectiveness, or on the other end the representation of what works or what is cool. if you’re determined to field mutilators because you have a great idea on how to customize them not to look so gawdawful, you’ll find a way to include them. if your oldschool metal commander was the first fully painted model you owned and it’s your favorite in your collection -- but he’s not as the internet demands, mounted on a bike with a relic shield to be unkillable, or touting a combi-grav instead of the stormbolter you stuck on him arbitrarily -- you’re still ok in fielding the model and using it as-is, because who cares about meta? some people will just avoid muties in the first place, or create a new army or some new squads because they like a new option. and there’s nothing really wrong if you want to compete in a big no-comp tournament, and you kit out an effective but un-fluffy list (nothing but Iron Hands bikers, for instance) because it’s fun (i’d love to model marines cybernetic from the waist down, attached to their bikes almost like robo-centaurs… or maybe if there were any good affordable and robust robo-horse models, actually make them robo-centaurs! imagine the modelling opportunities for the bike-riding company commander! but… oh, getting distracted again...).

the hobby intertwines with the game. just as the ideas seem to come out of nowhere, the hobbyist in me is always looking for a neat army-design.

because, really… none of us want to paint a model or customize it if we do not like the model AND if we cannot use it well. there might be that one thing we decide to try to use that just does not look right… but we include it because it’s effective. i know it’s how many people feel about Centurions (though, personally, i’ve found i like them far better without the leg-plates… especially for an IH army full of cybernetics… but had i the confidence in my skill i’d have hollowed out the marine portion of the legs and just left a ton of cables and cords… aaaand distracted again). there has to be some sort of draw. it’s either useful, required for completeness, or fun to paint.

my personal argument against the warmachine/hordes games is completely subjective, and in three parts. i’m more a fan of dark and gritty low fantasy or scifi than high fantasy, i’m more of a fan of force-based games than skirmish-level ones, and (most importantly) i love how GW has embraced the converters and the painters and the kitbashers with support over the years as opposed to encouraging uniformity. i’m not so in love with the historicals aspect that i want an army that looks like everyone else’s.

how to juggle it all?

over the years, i’ve heard the phrase “project ADD” come up a ton. it’s the reason for unassembled boxes in our closets and unpainted projects in our cases. it’s that idea that there’s always a newer, neater, more interesting army or take on an army that can be created. obviously, from my sidenotes here, i have more than a touch -- i have at least three armies i will never finish sitting in dust. because there’s neat new stuff to do, and new releases to touch.

i’ve of late pared down my purchases and my projects out of necessity, but i still get excited about making something neat.with a rush of new formations and classic detachments, there are almost too many options of how to play. that leads to too many options of how to convert something cool, and that in turn gives options of how to paint up a force. if you’re anxious to play with your toys, though, you might speed through one step or the other (i nearly ruined my Knight’s thematic base because i wanted to put him on the table, and almost rushed the water-effects i was planning).

first, you have to acknowledge that the game offers many different types of fun to many different people. you may only paint, and have a brilliantly done force of models that are slaughtered in your meta. you may regularly field the Grey Ghosts SM company, all right off the sprue, to great effect in every category but painting. maybe you do some research, maybe you write the exploits of your chapter in a furious scrawl on the pages of a cramped notebook, and maybe you have a huge poster of Roboute Guilliman on the wall by your bed. you might stop playing when your area’s players get a little too competitive and serious, or you might seek out the most cutthroat players you can find. it’s all good. but it really works better when it’s matched -- playing a super-competitive build with a new player might drive them away, and there’s something to be said for having an army that’s both useful and pretty.


if you find you're having a hard time with why someone plays the way they do, it might be because you are interested in different aspects. and that's cool. because the meeting ground between them is a neat place.

i'm not going to do it here (because i've said too much already), but i think that there are divisions more than just veteran and newb, has opportunity or not locally, as to who bought into AoS and who did not. the competitiveness, the strategic skill, the level of thematics, the interest in background... all contribute.