Losing narrative identity

[Bosmer Nightblade]

I saw a rather fantastic topic (or I thought so) by @pez5767 which was eventually locked after two people started defending plastic toys with a terminal intensity.

The topic is here:

Whilst I identified with this issue (people play how they want, but I do worry that many people assume matched is the default), the point I wanted to make was slightly separate, although related.

My concern is that GW starts to only concern itself with matched play as time goes on. Right now it's not doing too bad, but I feel that things are creeping in. GW makes a big effort to interact with Ben Curry, Dan Heelan, etc. But all are primarily competitive players who run their own competitive events, and now we're getting rules changes to the entire game for all styles, for issues that only impacted competitive. For example, the recent Kairos change to stop him interacting with turn order rolls. Was it balanced? No. But was it fluffy? Sure it was, it's a Lord of Change called "Fateweaver" directly interfering with fate. The whole game rules didn't need changing, just matched play. In the same way that summoning has limits in matched play but none by default in narrative and free.

And sure, of course you could say "well play it how you want. Do turn rolls if you want", but it's not the same. We all want a common starting point otherwise why use the game rules at all, why even buy the books when we can "do what we want".

Kairos' rule whilst indeed filth, was true to the narrative. And now it's gone, and it feels like a piece of his lore is deleted. That's just me, a narrative player. Aware many competitive players probably think good riddance.

What my concern is though is that this becomes a trend. GW in their constant interaction with competitive masters influencing more and more warscroll changes purely with balancing matched play in mind, but with the knock on effect of watering down the lore/fluff for everyone else. Maybe it won't happen, but I'm worried it could, hence my post of warning just to say "don't forget about the rest of us!".

I've gone on enough. Thank you for your time if you read this far :-)

 

[N_Watson]

4 minutes ago, Bosmer Nightblade said:

The whole game rules didn't need changing, just matched play. In the same way that summoning has limits in matched play but none by default in narrative and free.

I agree. I like to see that they are willing to make changes to war scrolls if they can identify a problem that is breaking the game. It is possible that things can get through testing that can ruin the fun for open and narrative games alike.  I agree however that they could have just put an errata in the FAQ saying that nothing can interfere with the priority roll for matched play. 
For example, the three rules of one have that you can't cast the same spell more than once. The new Tzaangor shaman on disk has an ability that allows them to cast 2 spells a turn that can be the same spell. The 3 rules of 1 in matched play stop this from working. 

[Thornshield]

Completely see where you're coming from and hope GW do listen to ensure the fun quirky rules that add narrative is not completely removed in favour of tight balanced play. However, I'd also say that I don't think it's a bad thing they cut back on some of it if it can break games but also agree that @N_Watson's suggestion could have been a cleaner way of doing so.

Maybe another way of looking at it is for the players who prefer Open and Narrative, we should be putting out more supplements/rules tweaks that can be used in non-Matched play games, as that's ultimately what the sandbox like nature of AoS lends itself to.

Another reason why an Open and Narrative sub-forum would be helpful to talk about these things.

[N_Watson]

Just now, Thornshield said:

Maybe another way of looking at it is for the players who prefer Open and Narrative, we should be putting out more supplements/rules tweaks that can be used in non-Matched play games, as that's ultimately what the sandbox like nature of AoS lends itself to.

Path to glory in the latest battletome. That is a good sign at the very least. 

[Bosmer Nightblade]

Thanks both for your comments.

Agreed that a narrative subforum would be nice.

(Tried to like your post by the way and got an error message of "you are not allowed to give reputation to this user". Weird)

[Thornshield]

Just now, N_Watson said:

Path to glory in the latest battletome. That is a good sign at the very least. 

Most definitely. GW are really listening to feedback and implementing it quickly. But there's more that can be done as a community for sure (think this may be something that was hinted at in the now-locked thread).

[N_Watson]

There have been more and more threads like this and the locked one over the last few weeks. They all kind of point out the same things. A subsection for the 3 ways of play and a section for list building critique would surely keep the forum cleaner and help bring like minded players together. 

[BaldoBeardo]

My concern is that GW starts to only concern itself with matched play as time goes on.

No need to be worried.

I mean, I take your point about Kairos' rule change, but it needed to be done. Affecting the initiative role is indeed a fluffy mechanic for Tzeentch, but it was also a God-level game buster. Outside of a tournament it'd be a bit of a crappy rule, inside a tournament it'd be a potential win button with no reliable way of countering.

That's no fun, regardless of your preferences.

GW have no intention of trying to win over people who play like they've got a pair[emoji769].

Matched Play is a thing now, so obviously any future warscrolls will have to bear the Kinrade Horizon^ in mind, but the last GHB needed a fair amount of space to create that ruleset. I'm pretty confident the next GHB won't, and more content will be added to other areas of the game.

^The Kinrade Horizon - the theoretical point at which a model's rules are so potent you could increase its' points value seemingly without limit and it would still be considered an auto-include.

Named for the sterling work carried out in the early 21st Century at the Forge World studio research facility.

[BaldoBeardo]

For example, the three rules of one have that you can't cast the same spell more than once. The new Tzaangor shaman on disk has an ability that allows them to cast 2 spells a turn that can be the same spell. The 3 rules of 1 in matched play stop this from working. 

I think that's entirely intentional, in a 'is the grass greener?' kind of way. Encourages people to deviate and try their own thing.

[Ollie Grimwood]

We did have a World wide campaign in the summer so we haven't been left out too much when it comes to narrative from GW, as well as the Realmgate Wars. In comparison to the other ways to play Matched is the new shiney as well so it's understandable it's generated a bit of excitement.

It makes sense that GW would talk to TOs when it comes to developing Matched play. I wouldn't be surprised if they spoke with NEOs in the same way about narrative games given time. It's just that the tournament scene is probably more established at the moment so it's just a bit easier to pin down who the main community drivers are.

Given how Jervis always speaks about narratives in wargames generally I don't think we've too much to worry about on that front.

(I thought the biggest loss on Kairos was no longer getting the bonuses from spelling out the spells backwards)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KHHaunts]

The way GW have been going atm i think that if there is a desire for it GW will provide in nothing else the tools for us to forge our own compelling narratives through the fluff development. I dont think there is any need for public outrage just yet but we should by no means let them forget that a great many of us love that narrative and casual side.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

35 minutes ago, KHHaunts said:

The way GW have been going atm i think that if there is a desire for it GW will provide in nothing else the tools for us to forge our own compelling narratives through the fluff development. I dont think there is any need for public outrage just yet but we should by no means let them forget that a great many of us love that narrative and casual side.

Exactly, that's basically it. Currently my status is "not outraged" , and it's entirely possible that the kairos nerf was for reasons of "aaah ****** that isn't what we meant for any style of play". But the fact remains that a lore-consistent rule has disappeared from narrative and matched play certainly has the current limelight.

We don't need to hit the panic button just yet, but I do want this post to be a reminder that there are plenty of us narrative and free players (some of us who I'm sure also play matched) who wouldn't want to see more rules disappear over time because the more vocal side of the community with direct access to GW rules writers complain about tomb kings, or 'compendium', or whatever flavour of the month warscroll is dominating matched tournaments.

Disclaimer: I do not and have not ever played using kairos. I also play matched play games at my club and I attended warlords. I just happen to be narrative at heart and the more games of that I can find, the better.

[Kaleb Daark]

a great thread and I'd like to add that it's very important we as players embrace narrative play as much as match play, other wise we go down the same road that fantasy found itself in, where armies and great factions started to gather dust and not get updates as they were not seen as worth buying / investing in by the competition community.

There was a lot of rage when brets, Tk's et all got killed off, but in truth we the player base were guilty of it.  Stuff doesn't get deleted if it keeps selling, its that simple.

It's not GW's fault for bringing out a new faction which trumps old, its what X-Wing does with its waves and magic does with its cards.  It's business at the end of the day.  But we now have a business that listens and we have a duty to respect that in turn and tell them what we want both in voice and wallet

 

[Bosmer Nightblade]

22 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

It's business at the end of the day.  But we now have a business that listens and we have a duty to respect that in turn and tell them what we want both in voice and wallet

 

I run one new army and one 'old' one that hasn't received a new book yet, as well as a side project of some mixed factions, also without books.

I've probably spent most of my gw funds on older models so I'm trying!

But then my newer army is full on narrative too and I spend there also.

I want to see a GW narrative tournament/event this year, but last time I looked there was nothing scheduled. Have I missed anything?

[wayniac]

As I said in the other thread, the main thing is that I feel a lot of these things might be to encourage Open/Narrative play as options, instead of making Matched the default, since a lot of these things don't always make sense as everyday rules, but make perfect sense in a tournament environment.  Of course the issue is that too many people labelled AOS "unplayable" without points, so as a result GW took the competitive players and got them to make tacked on competitive rules for a not competitive game, because people insisted on trying to shoehorn it into being played competitively.

The result is that I hope people become more open with things, but I fear it won't be so.  I have found that when the competitive players get their hands on something, it never escapes from the shadows.  I already see comments like "Don't take X it's worthless" or "Take Y in Z numbers for the best effect", and I fear that if GHB2 adds points per model or similar we will be right back to min/maxing math-hammer where it's Well for Unit X you want to take exactly 14 models, with 3 of <special choice>" type of things, the same kind of mentality that I find plagues 40k and plagued Fantasy, where things devolve into "how good is unit X" or the dreaded "What is the best army?" type of questions where people base choices solely on what will win them games, not what they want to play or what they will enjoy.

[mmimzie]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

 

The result is that I hope people become more open with things, but I fear it won't be so.  I have found that when the competitive players get their hands on something, it never escapes from the shadows.  I already see comments like "Don't take X it's worthless" or "Take Y in Z numbers for the best effect", and I fear that if GHB2 adds points per model or similar we will be right back to min/maxing math-hammer where it's Well for Unit X you want to take exactly 14 models, with 3 of <special choice>" type of things, the same kind of mentality that I find plagues 40k and plagued Fantasy, where things devolve into "how good is unit X" or the dreaded "What is the best army?" type of questions where people base choices solely on what will win them games, not what they want to play or what they will enjoy.

This is true, but why are these brought up. What's the point saying, "hey guys what do you think of this list?" I'll tell you what i think and give a min max and my thoughts of what would be fun?? I see nothing wrong with this?? These anacdotals are cool and all, but honestly i don't see these happen where it's not wanted, and if they do if someone says they don't care about matched play no one pushes these issues. 

If your playing a thing for fun/open play/ narrative. Than it's super obvious or it's very easy for you to make this very apaprent to the reads of your thread. "I played this crazy game with these models." Then everyone can tell you don't want critism, but then maybe no one will look at it. Which is cool becuase that's people voting with thier browser back buttons. The thing is we don't have to poke aroudn in narrative/open play if we don't want. Anyway this is off topic and already this is derailing into another one of these forum threads that turns into lock bait. 

I will say that rules changes should be availible in the app. It shoudl maybe have a version sliders, and the Generals Handbook part two could come with the recommendation of using the most updated warscrolls for models as that's the most "balanced" versions. WIth the slider however you can play with what ever you want to. If you want the wound bouncing tomb kings or turn altering fateweaver than you can. If you want monster riding wild platforms than all for it.  THis way we could preserve some of this stuff.

Maybe We could have a Narrative bold section of warscrolls that detail narrative only abilities, or have these kind of skills say they don't work in matched play or that they work differently in matched play.

[BlooDeck]

30 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Maybe We could have a Narrative bold section of warscrolls that detail narrative only abilities, or have these kind of skills say they don't work in matched play or that they work differently in matched play.

Could attach it to a warscroll that isn't available in Matched Play. Only downside would be needing Kairos AND 2 extra LoC!

[BaldoBeardo]

I don't think narrative gaming is bad, but if they could just have their own warscrolls instead of messing up ours, that'd be great... [emoji23]


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Bosmer Nightblade]

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I don't think narrative gaming is bad, but if they could just have their own warscrolls instead of messing up ours, that'd be great...


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Not sure if sarcasm, but that does indeed seem to be the sentiment.

[BaldoBeardo]

Not sure if sarcasm, but that does indeed seem to be the sentiment.

Oh, entirely sarcasm.

This is the bit I really, really don't get.
(Sorry if this heads a little off topic, but it's coming back, promise!)
In terms of commonly played tabletop mini wargames, Warmachine is unashamedly the game for competitive play. Tightly controlled, rigourously tested ruleset.
The game is pretty much won or lost on list building. Do it wrong, you're screwed. Do it right, and you get to watch your opponent fold up against a wall with next to nothing they can do about it. This is fine, as both players will normally go into a game knowing/expecting this.

Kings of War is the game for people that like maneouvring abstracted mass blocks of wound counters around the table. This is fine as well.

Ninth Age is Ninth Age, you either do or you don't on that front, you probably have an army for it already. Buuuuut they're having to change the background to avoid lawyergeddon.

AoS in default mode (open) is do what thou wilt. You have the core rules - and everything else plugs into it. There is no definitive "THE RULES".
It is simultaneously a game aimed at everybody and nobody in particular.

The literal narrative - the background, the imagery, the aesthetic, etc. is (I think) what sets apart AoS from these other games and is the unique selling point.
Because objectively, if your aim is simply to play a tabletop wargame, there are better written rulesets, there are more tightly controlled rulesets, and there are certainly cheaper mini ranges out there.

So I really, really don't understand why it seems to be a point of contention when the imagery of the universe manifests itself on the tabletop in some way?

[AGPO]

I have been collecting, painting and playing for more than two decades now. When Age of Sigmar was first released I was over the moon because for the first time in a long time,  it was possible to go into my local store or club and find something other than beginners clases or min-max tournament prep. These ways to play were always available in WFB and 40k but pointh were always seen as being 'proper.'

The trouble here is that points only provide balance if both armies are picked with the same mentality. If not, your newbie, your themed army builder and your casual player will spend most of their time getting curb stomped, which is no fun and ultimately shrinks the community. 

I'm weary off anything like the Kairos nerf because it feels like a move back to the primacy of points based play, which creates a downward spiral for narrative games. 

[Turragor]

I love narrative and I love matched. When I came back, the lack of overcomplicated rules attracted me. I was able to work with no points because I'm an adult and not a lunatic for boundaries. I can set my own. At the same time points are super handy for people I don't know so can't trust to be adults in return.

I think a lot of people are in that boat.

GW have launched something fun and experimental but are ultimately open to, perhaps even subservient to (depending on how you view a company and customer relationship) what the people want. I'd add 'the vocal people' or maybe even just what the 'opinion shapers' want. Set ways to play usually trickle down in gaming (I was never into tabletop enough when younger to see this then, I imagine it was, but it's all that happens in your League of Legends, WoWs or Dotas).

So it's a case of being vocal, gathering support, working on events, starting podcasts, writing blogs. Becoming an opinion shaper. Take narrative and make it huge.

There's no escaping (for me) the fact that there are people (unpaid) out there doing amazing things with matched. Maybe it's because they've a system in place to do it that carried over from 8th and previous editions. I don't think that matters, if people want narrative and open to live and grow they've to match the efforts of the more competitive crowds.

Legitimacy grows from these big events and big mouths basically (no disrespect with the big mouths comment :P).

I don't think writing to GW or on these boards and saying 'Hey don't forget us!' will be enough.

[Turragor]

Oh and you wouldn't have to do it alone either. I'd say 90% of those guys working on matched events would be open to a pitched idea for a big narrative event. Maybe they'd want a few concessions, say points costs. They're not against narrative though. At least, not the majority.

So you could even piggyback on the success of these bigger events and use the same network, planning, contacts and volunteers as the matched events (if you pick dates that don't clash ofc).

I love that there's a discussion like this, it's important but words won't do much. Not unless the whole hiving heap of 'net trolls are against something (see GHB as a result) and I don't think that kind of venom will sprout up for narrative. People into narrative can be gentler souls - or at least more understanding.

So yeah, it always feels good to write pretty words on a board but that's the 'someone fix this for me' approach in this instance (I think).

Someone take up the torch (someone probably already has so help 'em out).

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's interesting that there's the repeated concept that working without points makes you a morally-superior, or at least more mature gamer. Personally, Matched is what made me pick up the game and appreciate it. If it weren't for Matched, I wouldn't have 5K of Death and a fledgling Wood Elves force.

For me, how a model looks and how it plays are both important factors in whether I buy into it. If I love a model enough, it will see some kind of play, even if it's objectively kinda bad. Hence my long-suffering advocacy of Black Knights, as well as my love of Manticores, to take a 40K example. It's a reward when I buy, build, possibly convert, paint, then play a mini that adds a little more kick-*** to my army. It's enjoyable to try and make the square pegs fit and even build lists around them, and that's part of why I like points.

I mean, it's like a candy store with no prices. If you can have any chocolate bar, who would buy the cheap chocolate? Tbh I'm playing a Narrative Campaign with a friend who has Fireslayers, and we opted for Open because there's a scenario where it rains frikkin' zombies, man! Obviously that doesn't work in Matched, so Open it was. Bonza.

However I still consider Matched the default, and I find it interesting that these discussions often ignore a crucial point. Age of Simgar allows you to play any way you want, yet people feel that Matched Play is killing off the other styles.

What if people just generally prefer Matched Play? How do you expect to stop that?

[Turragor]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

It's interesting that there's the repeated concept that working without points makes you a morally-superior, or at least more mature gamer.

I don't mean that and am sorry if anything I said was like that. Reading back it does look a bit like I did, so sorry again

I basically mean the type of person you play against who is awful (for whatever reason) and matched and points at least help mitigate the awful horribleness that the same game with narrative rules would become against that devilish soul.

In that sense I just mean matched means you don't need to be as moral. The extra rules are the morality.

It's actually never happened to me (never met the infamous 'that guy') but I fear it with every new opponent. I don't have a lot of time to play with work and family so it'd be a real downer.