Abstract Principles of 40k

[Ailaros]

Inspired by my wife, who is nearing completion of her physics PhD dissertation, I decided that it might be useful if I likewise took my several years of experience in 40k and boiled it down into an essay. There was a lot I could write about, from codex creep and meta shifting to force concentration, movement skills and playing to the mission, or expounding on various bits of fluff. 40k is a big game after all.

In the end, though, I thought it would be the most helpful if I directed my energy into talking about 40k itself. What it is, and why we play it. The philosophical backdrop for all the other decisions that we make. Without further ado, let me present: Abstract Principles of 40k.

[url]http://ailarian.com/folera/articles/abstract-principles/abstract-principles-40k.pdf[/url]

(You can also download a more printer-friendly copy here:
[url]http://ailarian.com/folera/articles/abstract-principles/abstract-principles-40k-printer-friendly.pdf[/url]

or view it in your browser here:

[url]http://ailarian.com/folera/articles/abstract-principles/index.html[/url]

The hope is that it will help players understand the game and one another better, to help facilitate communication between players. It's a little dense, and more than a little esoteric, but this is a 40k forum after all.

[KAPcom]

This is incredible. The amount of work you've put into this paper is amazing, and from what I've read, spot on. I'll be reading the entire thing in detail over the next couple of days. Thank you for writing such a high level piece.

[YorkNecromancer]

Just had a skim read. It's all quite fascinating, and very well put-together.

I have a query regarding your 'types of player'. I was wondering why you discounted those parts of the community for whom painting and modelling is the key draw of the game? For me, the largest part of 40K is putting together models and painting them; if I was to put a ratio on hours of modelling to hours of actual tabletop play, it would be something like 5,000:1. (And no, I'm not exaggerrating there. I literally spend most of my free time modelling, and I've personally played maybe two games of 40K in the last three years. Refereed loads at the school club, sure, but not actually played myself).

Why are gamers like myself (who I know to be a small minority, but we're still there) not covered in your 'types of player'? Because I don't really model for other games, I'm not really interested in anything else (although the new Cyriss and Cephalyx models have me coming round to Warmachine, but not to play), and I am completely au fait with 90% of the rules - I own all the current codexes, and have passing familiarity with about 80% of the dataslates.

Is there a suggestion that we're 'doing it wrong', or are you looking at 40K as a pure competetive gaming experience? Because as you can imagine, from my point of view, to discount the modelling is to discount the most enjoyable part of the game.

[Ailaros]

Why are gamers like myself (who I know to be a small minority, but we're still there) not covered in your 'types of player'?

It being a types of player section, it had as its scope the actual playing of the game. Time spent painting and modelling and reading/writing works of fiction simply fall out of scope, nothing more.

I assume that when you do actually play, that something from that section is, during those times, applicable to you.

Is there a suggestion that we're 'doing it wrong', or are you looking at 40K as a pure competetive gaming experience? Because as you can imagine, from my point of view, to discount the modelling is to discount the most enjoyable part of the game.

If you read on past the first section, you'll find I come to the opposite conclusion. So-called "competitive" gaming is largely pointless in 40k.

Once again, though, it's a matter of scope. The article wasn't written for how to appreciate the art of painting models.

[YorkNecromancer]

It being a types of player section, it had as its scope the actual playing of the game. Time spent painting and modelling and reading/writing works of fiction simply fall out of scope, nothing more.

Ah, I see.

If you read on past the first section, you'll find I come to the opposite conclusion. So-called "competitive" gaming is largely pointless in 40k.

No, I must admit, I liked your conclusion. You've gone into a very detailed piece of work that justifies beliefs we both share - myself on a rather more intuitive level.

Reminds me a lot of the work that's been done in the computer games industry looking at why people game. I can't quite remember the details, but there's a lot of money been invested in it, because money, basically. Various players look for various things in games, and do so based around their personalities, environments, values, etc... While I agree with your conclusions, I suspect that could be because you're 'preaching to the choir' so to speak.

Have you considered the impact of things like VALS on 40K gamers' attitudes? If not, it might provide some interesting further insights.

[url]http://www.strategicbusinessinsights.com/vals/ustypes.shtml[/url]

[PaD]

Great essay. Really enjoyed reading it, and it has given me a lot to think about. I think a lot of people commenting on the BOLS front page posts could benefit from reading it also.

Thanks for posting it.

[Wolfshade]

I do like the argument for 40k being imbalanced for a reason

[Anggul]

I do like the argument for 40k being imbalanced for a reason

It makes good points, but it misses out the fact that the various units can be balanced by thinking of them in relation and combination to each other. The point about Cultists vs an army of tanks is empty because they aren't meant to be balanced when you only have an army of one thing, they're meant to be balanced in combination.

What is a very good point is that if there were true balance, there are some things you wouldn't ever use. That's true, because GW sometimes make units that fulfil exactly the same function, and that's their fault, the game shouldn't suffer for it.

I think that whole section misunderstands what people are saying when they say they want balance. They don't mean they should be able to play any combination of units and still have an even chance of winning. They mean things should cost the appropriate amount for what they do, and should do something useful for that cost in combination with the other available units. It isn't about being able to take anything and win, it's about anything being a viable choice for the appropriate plan or army style. Some units aren't meant for certain styles of army, so aren't going to be good when used in them. That doesn't make them poor, unbalanced units, it's just a case of an Avatar not being a good part of a Saim-Hann Wild Rider host because its pace doesn't match up with theirs, and so on. They're meant to be balanced according to how they will be used in the grander scheme, so suggesting that balance means being able to use any combination of any units and still have an even chance of winning does not apply.

Building a list is as much part of the game as playing the turns, the trick to 'balance' 40k is to make all of the choices viable for one reason or another, and the problem with 40k is that many units aren't worth the points even when used for the role that they exist to serve in. No-one is saying you should be able use an army packed with Mandrakes and expect to win against a mechanised regiment, but you should be able to take Mandrakes in a certain style of army and have them work well assuming you use them correctly. As it is, they just don't work and aren't worth their points regardless of how well you use them, because they don't hit hard enough and aren't survivable enough.

Units can indeed be balanced, but it takes thought and testing and due to the more abstract and variable nature of the game compared to, say, a board game, takes more thought and effort to do, and sometimes you have to accept that a unit in its current form is taking on the same role as one that already exists, so sometimes it just comes down to personal preference.

[Silvertongue]

I'm liking it. However, I find it has a major flaw that kind of impairs it: it is, essentially, a long-winded blog post. It has no references, no empirical content. It's opinion. A very educated and articulate opinion, mind, and one I'm enjoying and with which I'm mostly agreeing, but it takes more than experience and anecdotes to really build a serious essay on the matter. Those "types of players", for example, would require of a statistically robust data collection and treatment, before we can even begin to say with any amount of certainty that they do in fact exist and are a significant part of "the hobby". Before we can make assumptions, we need data, and quite a lot of them.

So it's very nice, and really shows your love and dedication to the hobby, and I will pass it around. But it's pre-scientific.

Maybe I'm the only one who has a problem with that, who knows.

[Arkhan Land]

I think this is a good organizing of thoughts many of which I've seen in different spots on the internet but not as coherently. Although i think certain elements may represent just a little more opinion than objectivity they aren't things I don't entirely agree with.