Losing narrative identity

[Ollie Grimwood]

I think people's perceptions on how much Narrative play there is may change a little once the narrative section opens up. It seems to that perceptions might be being guided by having the narrative stuff a little harder to find. There's certainly been some very well received narrative events and there are more to come. GW has also got an interesting Triumph and Treachery event in march, yes it does say bring 1000pts of stuff but it is using the Triumph and Treachery battleplans (which are technically Open play) so it's not Matched play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KHHaunts]

9 hours ago, Bosmer Nightblade said:

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.

The funny thing about the karios thing and narratives in general though is that the rules tend to be unique to the situation.

matched play essentially need to take fore ground when it comes to the base rules as they all need a single hymn sheet to sing off of in order to make it work and then hymn sheet needs something approaching perfection in order for all the players to be happy with it (Hence all the discussions)

Narrative on the other hand is casual and imaginative and i cant imagine many people kicking up a fuss over the rules like people do for matched play.

If for this battle for the purposes of the narrative you would like karios to have his ability back then i would be happy to and i wouldnt feel the need to get GW permission for it. Matched play isent creative its a basically competitive sport and a competitive sport needs rules. and any sporting rules need to come from a unified governing body.

GW dont need to tell us how to dream (Getting deep now) they provide fluff and minis and a core rule set. and we make magic happen.

Im pretty sure there i quite few examples of special abilites in narratives as well. Dosent nagash get his powers stripped for narrative purposes in "Fate of Shiysh"

[BaldoBeardo]

I don't mean that and am sorry if anything I said was like that.

I think this is probably mea culpa...

Matched play neckbeards who get their epeen from convincing themselves they won on genius merit because the system is fair are the flip side to the screechers who only want to play narrative because fielding Archaon and a swarm of Varanguard against that Moonclan force is fluffy or cinematic and therefore still a valid win.

These are small circles on the Venn diagram but in both cases the common thread is that they've lost sight of the fact that playing a good game and having a great time is the most important factor.

Which is why GW are always, repeatedly clear that discussion with your opponent before the game is important.

It's also why GW've been clear that the game will continue to develop along the three pronged approach.
Most matched play gamers will likely fancy a beer'n'pretzels game at some point (gaming club no-shows an ideal opportunity for this!), and even the most ardent fluff gamer will want to test their abilities 'properly' from time to time.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[JontyGoesGaming]

Can I just sound a quick note of caution here, as someone who recently got a bit carried away on a similar topic.

Narrative is not going anywhere. There are four live battle reports per week livestreamed from Warhammer World (what a time to be in the hobby!) and 50% of that coverage is narrative. GBH lists it as one of the three ways to play. It includes Path to Glory which chaps like @HobbyHammer have really picked up the ball and run with. Path to Glory is now also getting included in Battletomes suggesting that growing your army, and it's story is fun. So I really don't see AoS dominated by competitive gaming - if that's even a thing.

With the greatest respect, there's a fair few of us that would like a narrative subforum. I think it's a great idea and it should happen. But it's not going to happen if the mods and board runners think that it'll just fill up with posts complaining about why no-one plays narrative. That will just degenerate into lock-bait and 'them and us' ******.   

@Chris Tomlin made a really good point recently on the latest Black Sun which is that lots of people who are open to playing a story-driven game but probably won't without seeing it showcased. So it's up to us 'narrative gamers' (and I'm beginning to really dislike that label' to show why it's fun, why it's worth the effort (and I do think it's extra effort) with pictures, examples, videos if possible, terrain, and really nicely done homebrew rules.

So to end on a constructive note - and to go back to your original point - could Battalions be the key here? There are loads on the app which don't have points, because while they're iffy in matched play, they're great fun for a story-driven game. 

Why don't we collectively write a battalion warscroll which includes Kairos, gives the battalion that rule?

Anyone good at penning rules? I'll happily have a stab if you like to begin with and kick things off. 

Chronomantic Court

Kairos Fateweaver is Tzeentch's most formidable emissary, holding the  power of the future and the knowledge of the past in his minds, and all save the Architect of Fate himself must bend the knee when the Oracle of Fate is present. On occasions of great eldritch import, the Fateweaver may summon the mysterious creatures known as the Gaunt Summoners to form a Chronomantic Court, drawing on their magical abilities to stabilise the strands of fate. But to be summoned thus is a dubious honour, as

Organisation

• Kairos Fateweaver
• Between one and nine Gaunt Summoners

Abilities

Reality shimmers like glass, the skeins of fate stretching out like ghostly tendrils to allow the Fateweaver to manipulate time and space.

INSERT KAIROS RULE

Apocalyptic Temporal Flux: Such are the warping powers unleashed that unchecked, the raw power of so many clashing realities can tear holes in existence itself. If you use this ability, d3 wounds are immediately inflicted on the battalion. These may not be saved and may not be altered by Kairos' Oracle of Eternity rule, but may be distributed between the models providing there is at least one Gaunt Summoner still in the battalion. If a model is killed outright, it may be replaced by a chaos spawn, if you have one.

[Mohojoe]

Its a shame that the original thread devolved so rapidly as there were some very valid and important points made that I believe were lost under the tsunami of posts.

After thinking about this over the course of the evening I do find myself torn.  I lean towards competitive play (lets get that out there early) mostly due to the lack of players around me and how hard it is for me to actually get a game in. A lot of my time is spent theory planning for when I will actually get to play with other people. I can plan lists, read up on units, share and discuss tactics on the forum, read battle reports, watch battle reports, discuss battle reports and s**t post on people s**t posting on my s**t posts. 

I cant necessarily do all of this for narrative games as they require a predetermined game (something I am unlikely to get in my current position with the lack of players around me). I don't feel that there is as much to talk about with narrative, unless you are actually involved in a narrative game. A lot of competitive chat can be spoken about by people who have never been to a tournament. 

That's why I feel narrative gets misrepresented. However, Ben has said that a narrative subforum is on its way so with a bit of patience there will be an area where the narrative side of the game can be presented easier to fellow players and perusing GW  employees better I suspect.

As to if matched play rulings are made without respect to narrative gaming, It is possible, yes. However, I may be alone in this, I would not want to play a narrative game where I don't have a chance at winning, to me there is no fun in that. The fun is found in forging a story behind the conflict. There was a fantastic topic here recently about what people believe a narrative event requires to be successful, I believe it needs a certain competitive nature, part of what forges a story in narrative games is that last hope charge that clinches you a win or the bitter last unit defending against hordes of enemies until the last one falls. So the rules in part need to be stable and fair (Read RULES and not POINTS). 

I don't believe fluffy always equates to fun, and this is the case for Kairos' rule change. While fluffy may be the guiding force behind narrative, remember that Fun is the guiding force behind the entire hobby.

Finally ( As I am sure people have stopped reading by this point, I think I probably have )  as I said on the previous topic, If you feel your aspect of the hobby is misrepresented, perhaps you should champion it as so many great members of our community have started doing. I personally think I probably need to take my own advice here as my area seems to be lacking great events these days. 

[Sadysaneto]

they can leave scrolls for matched and use times of war for Narrative. No big deal.

[DeadlySarcasm]

We have a feedback section on the forums, if you guys feel like you would like a separate space for narrative talk, then make a post in the feedback section.

Cheers

[Mohojoe]

 

22 minutes ago, DeadlySarcasm said:

We have a feedback section on the forums, if you guys feel like you would like a separate space for narrative talk, then make a post in the feedback section.

Cheers

On 09/01/2017 at 9:54 PM, Ben said:

No danger of that.  There is a narrative section coming soon. 

Its already on the tables mate, Ben confirmed it in the current community vote

[DeadlySarcasm]

3 minutes ago, Mohojoe said:

 

Its already on the tables mate, Ben confirmed it in the current community vote

Well thats what you get for not paying attention

[Ollie Grimwood]

Also @HobbyHammer has turned his blog into a narrative hub in the meantime. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Well thats what you get for not paying attention [emoji6]

*Response springs to mind*
*Sees new forum message notification*
"Awwww, dammit". [emoji16]

[HobbyHammer]

19 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

Also @HobbyHammer has turned his blog into a narrative hub in the meantime. 

http://www.tga.community/forums/forum/102-hobby-hammer/ - You can find it here!  

[Siegfried VII]

I've read the various topics "matched vs narrative" and for the life of me I can't understand the conflict.

Personally I prefer matched play and I find a game with no points unplayable. I want a game that is strategically rewarding and in my opinion it is counter productive to sit with my opponent and discuss a game without points as I do not trust his judgement (or mine for that matter) in order to create equal odds for a game. Others have other opinions and while I do not agree I respect them.

Now what I do not understand is why the one way excludes the other...

Why can't I play a matched play battle where everyone of my characters will be named and have their background story. Why can't I play a matched play with a carefully conceived special scenario that will be both balanced and narrative and fluffy.

On the other hand why can't I have a whole campaign with fluff and narrative/role play opportunities and still use matched play rules for the actual gameplay of the battles (perhaps with a few narrative additions and options).

Is there somewhere a rule that says that I can't have games that are both balanced and have a narrative theme? Must a narrative play have no points or balance? Must a matched play be like chess and just use the units as numbers?

No there's no such rule and no there are no such limitations.

 

So I'm planning to create a campaign for my gaming club where we will use matched play rules and also use rules from 2 of the campaign styles in the general's handbook plus a few fluffy ones of our own.

As such I urge everyone to have a talk with their friends, see what style of play the majority wants and use it mainly with splashes of the other style of play and be a happy hobbyist.

[HobbyHammer]

24 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

I've read the various topics "matched vs narrative" and for the life of me I can't understand the conflict.

Personally I prefer matched play and I find a game with no points unplayable. I want a game that is strategically rewarding and in my opinion it is counter productive to sit with my opponent and discuss a game without points as I do not trust his judgement (or mine for that matter) in order to create equal odds for a game. Others have other opinions and while I do not agree I respect them.

Now what I do not understand is why the one way excludes the other...

Why can't I play a matched play battle where everyone of my characters will be named and have their background story. Why can't I play a matched play with a carefully conceived special scenario that will be both balanced and narrative and fluffy.

On the other hand why can't I have a whole campaign with fluff and narrative/role play opportunities and still use matched play rules for the actual gameplay of the battles (perhaps with a few narrative additions and options).

Is there somewhere a rule that says that I can't have games that are both balanced and have a narrative theme? Must a narrative play have no points or balance? Must a matched play be like chess and just use the units as numbers?

No there's no such rule and no there are no such limitations.

 

So I'm planning to create a campaign for my gaming club where we will use matched play rules and also use rules from 2 of the campaign styles in the general's handbook plus a few fluffy ones of our own.

As such I urge everyone to have a talk with their friends, see what style of play the majority wants and use it mainly with splashes of the other style of play and be a happy hobbyist.

I agree completely, narrative is not limited to playing with no points, narrative is just about creating a story for your games and immersing yourself into the game rather than just treating your miniatures like chess pieces, but again if this is the way you like to play, then do it. There is no right or wrong way to play, just as long as everyone involved is having fun whilst playing. There is no Matched vs narrative. All I would add to the point about the game needing to be equal. A game doesn't need to be equal IMO. Some great stories are told with a completely unbalanced game. Sometimes it is the against all odds scenarios I find most fun. 

[mmimzie]

@HobbyHammer and points gives you a great way to make a game un equal. We can say this guy gets 3k points to this guys 1k so he's gotta stand up against vastly oberwelmimg odds first 2 turns until some small but well placed back up arrives at around 500 more points. Then maybe once that game is done then a new game starts maybe a turn after that last one ended and the guy who was out numbered gets to fight against what's left with another 1k point army. 

 

Kind of recreated the 300 spartan thing in my head alittle bit there. This lets you tell a pretty sick story that fabors one side in number, but lets the other guy get abit of planning and limitations on what he should bring. That way i can call up my buds and say "hey bring 2x 1k pointlist and a small 500 point back up team." That way my friend doesnt need to bring every model they own. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

Not to mention that if you win that imbalanced scenario, because you know that the odds were definitely not in your favour, you know that it was gunna be tough from the outset. I find that fun, personally.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

Cheers for all the responses folks. I want to give out more likes but apparently I've hit the like limit for 'today'.

Looking forward to the narrative section when it arrives.

I certainly don't feel one form of play is superior to another. I just feel that matched is the assumed default. Hopefully the new forum section can alleviate that.

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, Siegfried VII said:

I've read the various topics "matched vs narrative" and for the life of me I can't understand the conflict.

Personally I prefer matched play and I find a game with no points unplayable. I want a game that is strategically rewarding and in my opinion it is counter productive to sit with my opponent and discuss a game without points as I do not trust his judgement (or mine for that matter) in order to create equal odds for a game.

Let me attempt, as one who felt as you do for must of the last 30 years I've played Warhammer, to give you something to consider. 

Fans of narrative play aren't really playing a game. 

?

They are writing a story together.  

It took a looong time for me to get there.  We balanced-game-traditionalists see the action on the table as the culmination of all that collecting, listing, painting, and so on.  The game's the thing.  It's all in service to 2 hours of competition.  Story has almost no place in this, and talking about our armies or the "plot" ahead of time is simply nuts!

Cuz it's a game.

Games are competitions, accept it or not, and they have winners and losers.  To do anything that diminishes the competition is to undermine the very activity itself. 

But a story?  That's another matter.

The point has almost nothing to do with the outcome, other than that any action that ends the game too quickly or in a landslide result is actually to be avoided.  In other words, the participants don't want the movie to end at "Yes, shoot that escape pod too, even though there are no life forms." 

Narrative gamers want to tell a tale together.  Matched play gamers want to test themselves in competition. 

Two totally different things, and trying to understand one *as* the other leads to chaos. 

[rokapoke]

11 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

In other words, the participants don't want the movie to end at "Yes, shoot that escape pod too, even though there are no life forms." 

On the other hand, if the movie had ended there we wouldn't have been subjected to the prequels...

[Turragor]

1 minute ago, rokapoke said:

On the other hand, if the movie had ended there we wouldn't have been subjected to the prequels...

Technically that would have been the true ending of sorts to the prequels. Think about THAT in your next nightmare.

[Mohojoe]

2 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

On the other hand, if the movie had ended there we wouldn't have been subjected to the prequels...

 

[Kaleb Daark]

@Sleboda like everything in life we'll always have the guy as has been said who rocks up with archaon and six scrolls of filth because fluff.

But we're not all like that, and I'd like to think that said guy really doesn't get much table time amongst normal people.

I grew up with fantasy since 1st ed, and I came to it via dungeons and dragons and roleplaying so I used to love the narrative scenarios which were out at the time, Terror of the Lichmaster, McDeath, Bloodbath at Orcs Drift and others in white Dwarf like Return of the LichMaster, which introduced the skaven to the world of scenario play.

 

I think there's a place for them and done right they're so much fun.  For GW, it would be quite cool to release the format again, as you used to get a range of minis to accompany the scenario for a limited time.  Happy days.

[Turragor]

10 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

I used to love the narrative scenarios which were out at the time, Terror of the Lichmaster, McDeath, Bloodbath at Orcs Drift and others in white Dwarf like Return of the LichMaster, which introduced the skaven to the world of scenario play

I think there's a place for them and done right they're so much fun.  For GW, it would be quite cool to release the format again, as you used to get a range of minis to accompany the scenario for a limited time.  Happy days.

isn't that very much their direction with 40k at the moment? I don't think GW is against any form of play, they genuinely want a mix of customers with varied wallets.

[Kaleb Daark]

13 minutes ago, Turragor said:

isn't that very much their direction with 40k at the moment? I don't think GW is against any form of play, they genuinely want a mix of customers with varied wallets.

I suppose you're right now that I think about it.  I like the Rowntree GW, it's got a real nice vibe about it.

[wayniac]

The problem as I see it is this, and it's several things:

1) AOS has three ways to play ("Open", "Narrative", and "Matched")

2) Open and Narrative are essentially two sides of the same coin, as you are either playing whatever you want and discussing with your opponent if they feel it's fair, or your forces are determined by a specific narrative you are recreating or one of your own creation.  The only difference between Open and Narrative seems to be that Narrative is encouraging predetermined armies, such as keeping the same force between games.

3) Matched is the one people gravitate towards as it is "balanced" (or, rather, the illusion of balance) and as a result, is the assumed default because it removes the need to come up with a narrative that determines forces or simply decide what is or isn't fair.  As a result, for the majority of people Matched becomes the only way to play, because wanting to play Open or Narrative at best gets you a "Thanks but no thanks" from a prospective opponent, or at worst starts an argument over how Open is unbalanced and/or how a game can't be played without points.

The result is that Matched Play is bleeding into everything.  The FAQs are a perfect example, as I tried to point out in a threat specifically talking about tournaments before being told I was "off topic" for mentioning that Matched bleeding into everything is the entire problem, because it ends up affecting everything as a result of it being the playstyle the majority of people gravitate towards.  The limitations imposed on Matched Play make sense from a tournament point of view, but not elsewhere, and that is the entire issue: People are blindly applying restrictions to help corral tournament play into every game of AOS because Matched Play is always cropping up as the default, and it's Open and Narrative that is the outliers instead of it being the other way around, Open being the default, Narrative being encouraged and Matched being the exception when you want to reign things in a bit with a baseline set of guidelines.