Narrative wargaming is awful and antithetical to the concept of wargaming.
 Man-made Horrors Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Man-made Horrors Shirt $21.68 |
Narrative wargaming is awful and antithetical to the concept of wargaming.
>Narrative wargaming
It's just a mirror thread
It's just sad Batman instead of sad joker. This is considered very clever. /tg/ entirely consists of generals and bait.
Feels wrong that they're not facing opposite directions.
144 replies
It's largely just giving a battle some context. Or re-creating an actual historical battle.
Then that would be pretty based.
Myth was a pretty good game just because of its story so yeah OP is just gay.
It is a thing. These toys come with lore and/or history books you know?
I wish someone else would say it
WAR is inherently competitive and BRTUAL. Warmachine had the right idea, competition should be encouraged and the game built around it. Pussy losers who love "narrative" can go pretend to be a gay in Dungeon and Dragons.
>Muzzle Flare from gas escape
>No actual Bolts being fired
Why is this artist moronic?
Maybe they both missed?
Lore and theme come first when army building. FRICK competitive meta gays.
>lore
Retconned all the time
>theme
You mean "build"?
Are you so lacking of free will that you simply can't choose to ignore it and pick the lore you like? I'm sorry you c**ts just bend the knee to whatever is viable and currently being pushed onto you. Primaris will not stop me from keeping my manlet marines, no matter how badly they are going to be phased out.
You almost dropped your crown, king
this
competitive homosexuals ruin almost every single game when devs try and cater to them. there ahs to be a balance to a game to maintain the fun, but you never go full compgay
Go back to Ganker Black person
This competitive gaming has been a plague on both vidya and TG for far too long. I'm so tired of highly filtered no frills-no fun slop who all think they are going to be the next big sports league. Its tripe and I am tired of pretending its not. I play these types of games for creativity. If I wanted to play a sport I would go outside and play one.
All Competitive play does is file of all the fun stuff so they can have their gray sludge that boils down to one specific build and twitch reflexes. Its Garbage and needs to stop being pandered to/
Wow, a moron in the wild. Neat.
>competition
>tabling uour opponent on turn two because of some rules technicality
The great thing is eventually you come across people who won't just put up with your autistic behaviour.
If you table your opponent on turn 2, either they suck or the designers fricked up. It's not the fault of the player doing the tabling (as long as they're playing by the rules etc)
>Warmachine had the right idea
and where is warmachine now, anon? huh? HUH?
f-frick you
Everything dies, no matter how big or small.
Just because something lived out its lifetime, does not mean it didn't have merit, as we can see with war machines’ success back in its day.
>Just because something lived out its lifetime, does not mean it didn't have merit
LMAO THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF EVOLUTION LEL.
I want competition, b-but not when i fail.
Okay then. Competitive wargaming is the best, because its the one that is currently in style.
They dropped their support for tournament organizers AND tried pushing narrative "theme" lists. So basically they became super gay and the game died.
Notice how 40k is the most popular it has ever been? Notice how this coincides with the most tournament support from GW in their history? This isn't a coincidence. People WANT to play tough-as-nails competitive games, narrative stuff was always for theater gays.
>People WANT to play tough-as-nails competitive games
Then why are they playing 40k?
Name a wargame with a larger and more well supported competitive playerbase
Advanced Squad Leader
I'm not gonna make it, because it would be a tragedy to lose that one furry bumpgay thread, but one of these should really exist for simgays too. Because if it's too historical, it's too hysterical
There is no other kind of wargaming.
Intended narratives in wargames are shit.
Emergent narratives in wargames are great.
The problem is that you can't force an emergent narrative, and the desire for a narrative leads people to start running wargames with intended narratives.
It's a slippery slope and not something that can be avoided on any scale larger than a single table.
How do you figure that? Heresy narrative events are great, you start with a target planet or system, teams have objectives and then game outcomes feed into things changing course. Resources are fought for and then deployed to impact other games and push the tide of campaign games be way or another.
I’ve just finished rebuilding my original third ed tactical squads into a unit of mkvii inductii for HH imperial fists. I failed to paint yellow as a twelve year old and went with midnight blue instead, the yellow was still on the first box with when I stripped them though. It feels poetic that my original troops are now a different armies replacements, finally getting the livery I initially imagined.
Why is this only a Warhammer complaint outside of historicals every other wargame doesn’t have this online community of
>wahhh wahhh why can’t you play narratively you WAACer!!! This sucks Warhammers soul is me dead!!!
I never see this in infinity or bushido just pure Warhammer complaining.
Warhammer fans hide behind narrative because the rules suck ass
Infinity is a dead game and what the frick is bushido??? Face it narrative is king, warmachine died and it was fully comp oriented. Good rules are temporary but the stories are eternal.
Warhammer survived being narrative and fun focused its dying now for being comp obsessed now. Every other wargame that appeal to tourney shit is DEAD
And every other wargame is barely played or dead lol
That explains the proliferation of them.
All other war games might be cheaper or have better rules but they barely have settings worth a damn
>Bushido
Literally who? I heard of Infinity
It's a complaint made by autists who obviously don't play. Any kind of normal person is going to try to win whatever game they're playing. That same normal person also isn't going be a "WAACer".
"WAAC" used to be an accusation of cheating or using bizarre interpretations of the rules to acquire an unfair advantage. Having a normal, well adjusted desire to win a friendly game is not WAAC. It is in fact the normal state of affairs.
All this "muh WAACgays" b***hing just reeks of childish hurt egos who couldn't cope with losing to some teenager at the local store.
Ask me how I know you're a fat troon.
At this point I think the only thing that could save warhammer is if they threw out listbuilding entirely, and you were only allowed to field canon forces with options based on objectives, like taking siege weapons in sieges. It'd be a minimum of three, full size tactical squads with flamethrower and missile launcher and it'd be lovely.
The very best method of wargamung is with people who have an expansive, fully painted collection each.
Meet, arrange a scenario, select forces from the collection that suit the scenario you've just invented, play.
Where did you get the 40k mod for chain of command, friend? I just went a-googling but only found dead links
NTA, but I know of two different projects, neither of which looks active.
>https://www.ioandaviesjohn.com/fangames-mods
It's actually Chain of Command 30k, but it also includes Orks. It's the most complete and thought out of the two, but it looks like it requires a lot of models.
>https://adventuresinscifi.blogspot.com/2019/12/40k-variant-for-chain-of-command.html
It attempts to add most 40k factions, but it feels quite incomplete (for example, nothing melee tweaks allowing to better represent 40k vs real life combat).
You're a gay. Fighty stories are cool stories. I was playing pretend wars years before I had any appreciation for balanced tabletop games.
You're a gay, war stories are cool stories, I had fun making up war-stories (based on G.I.Joe and Ninja Turtles and other American media poison) years before I had any concept of a fair or balanced tabletop game.
So? Play something else then, and stop sniveling.
If you're trying simulate a real war, then kinda, but you'd still want semi-random battlefield conditions to that end. If you're trying to have fun, then that's subjective. It's a question of how much war you want in your game, and vice-versa.
I legtimately don't know how narrative wargaming works even though I have seen people tout it before
You're playing a scenario instead of trying to build narrative competitive lists. Imagine a scenario where a much smaller force A is trying to hold back an overwhelming force B. It's not competitively balanced because that's not the point, you're playing to see if the underdog player manages to win (or just lose less) through clever strategy.
Playing games for fun? What on Earth?
Okay that actually makes sense and sounds cool. I was just wondering how it would work with historical games when there's a "canon" version of who won and lost.
In case of historicals, the whole point is that you try to put yourself in the shoes of a commander of that era and try to do better.
In a historical recreation you're trying to see what alternative outcomes you can get from the battle
Hex and counter wargames have been doing that for over half a century. You just design the victory conditions around doing better than what your historical counterpart did. Sometimes though you also have to take into account the gift of hindsight. For example the Battle of Cannae is pretty evenly matched on paper so you can’t assume the Roman player will be as moronic as Varro
>For example the Battle of Cannae is pretty evenly matched on paper
By what measure does anyone come to this conclusion?
Both sides were relatively evenly matched on paper based on force size and strength (Varro had more heavy infantry, Hannibal had more cavalry) and there was no decisive terrain feature either. Varro just clumped his army way too close together and smashed it into the Carthaginian line and then was surprised when the much stronger Carthaginian flanks broke his and double enveloped him.
Here's an image of how Cannae is portrayed in the game SPQR. All the Roman player has to do to avoid the historical disaster is not march his entire center forward.
How do I move forward in a straight line?!
You move forward?
You can also do alternate history stuff
Ran a game of Necromunda where the gangs had to hunt down and kill a released Juve. There are 3 location counters on the board. 2 are blanks. 1 is where the kid is hiding. The idea is that a small clique of spire somebodies is placing bets on which gang and gang member will make the kill. They'll give a prize if their gang kills the mark. They'll give a bigger prize if their chosen hunter gets the kill. The Juve is also a psyker. There are 3 or 4 Servo skulls moving around the board at random and the gang will get a bonus for killing the Juve via coup de grace within 3" of a pict-skull.
Sounds cool
You sound like a dirty Circle-Trigonist.
We'll take the Piggly Wiggly back from you bastards!
>Nonsensical bot thread to complain about randomly generated issue made by combining random words
I like that warhammer 40k is focused on competitive. It means they focus on making the GAME a GAME and then if you want narrative, you can supplement it in as an afterthought.
Both sides win.
40K is bleeding players due to having gone full compgay in 10th. (dumbed down base rules, overly complex and interpretation-necessary codex interactions)
I don't think i've ever seen such a strong "who gives a shit" vibe than over current 40K even from other GW game paypiggies.
It is my belief that if one wants narrative then they shouldn't have to rely on the official releases to give them that. The narrative can(and should) be home-brewed.
If you want narrative play some garbage that looks like what this anon
posted.
That has all the "narrative" you need. Leave people who just want to play the game well to do so.
>If you want narrative play
I'll just play any wargame with decent people instead of tourneyhomosexuals and Mordheim if I want ongoing mechanized narratives over my dudes.
>Leave people who just want to play the game well to do so.
Dunno if you've been to any actual open tables but it's usually the WAAC spergs who have trouble not bringing their shit to friendlies and have a meltie when you'd rather just give up a game and go play someone else early on than spend your day off playing out a 3-5 hour netlist meta insta-loss.
I’d much rather play some dusty game that’s older than me with some old grognard and discuss history than play with a gay like you who takes brightly colored spacemen too seriously
I dunno bro, that looks like there’s way more opportunity for mastery and skillful play than 40k. 40k is a game of toys for children.
10th was dumbed down because of narrative whiner morons like you. Actual comp players prefer editions like 8th or 9th with lots of crunch to them
The game is mechanically inferior to...basically any other wargame in existence, miniature or otherwise.
Well I only play 40K so I can't really argue against that. I do, however, enjoy the way it plays. What with strategems and abilities. Also the way AP and saves work is so much better than they way it worked back in the day. Also vehicles having wounds instead of rolling on a table is way better.
Why not both?
Every person I ever met who complained about competitive play was a mathlet who couldn't do the basic arithmetic they were taught in grade school if their life depended on it. Guess what, morons? People with two braincells to string together do both at the same time and it's fun
I think the need to drive model sales ends up corrupting the rules for most of the wargames we're talking about here. Certainly a few were able to achieve a transcendent state for a period of time but inevitably a new edition somehow fricks it all up. It seems the most balanced of the popular wargames are community takeovers like Epic 40K because the community isn't trying to cover new tooling on a public balance sheet every month.
Don't care homosexual
I WILL build only the armies I think are cool regardless of how good or bad they are
I WILL build said armies as you'd see them in-universe. Good for me if I end up grabbing whatever's "meta".
And I WILL be happy
An observation I've made is that casual players 90% of the time when I've gone into a FLGS or a GW have almost their entire army unpainted.
Tourniegays on the other hand almost always have their whole list painted.
WAACgay at my LGS was infamous for playing Greytide or just borrowing people’s armies.
>WAACgay=/=tourniegay
>wargaming is awful and antithetical to the concept of wargaming.
Here, i haded your next thread so you dont have to waste your time
No.
Skirmishes are rad and you are a flaming homosexual.
https://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/qstarchive/2019/3403347/
Will we get another thread of
>wargame is awful and antithetical to the concept of wargaming.
???
Running a WAR is what wargaming is about and always has been. It's called WARgaming not battlegaming.
Narrative style wargaming is based and traditional, most modern professional wargaming is Narrative style.
Wargaming is meant to simulate warfare. It is a tool for training the mind in tactical and strategic thinking, help develop doctrine and influence military decision making. Recreational Wargaming is its civilianized offspring, but it is meant to do something slightly different: emulate warfare.
The real scourge is Competition style "wargaming"
The competition style of Wargaming, with its carefully balanced point system and perfectly mirrored terrain layout is designed to create near equality on the field, something that is extraordinarily rare in actual warfare. It overemphasizes kinetic interaction and minimizes all other aspects of warfare to such an insanely absurd level that it almost completely removes the element of strategy from the game. Rules over emulation makes for fair gameplay, but it is incredibly regimented and further detaches the style from the intention of wargaming.
I question why competition style wargamers bother investing in figures, vehicles and terrain when their style of gaming makes these all irrelevant. All you actually need to play in this manner is a set of dice, the rule book and a neutral arbitrator to settle any disagreements.
Everything else is just fluff to give an air of dignity to a gathering of excel sheet autists.