One of the common misconceptions about Narrative Play is that the armies need to be weak or non-competitive. This isn’t true: you can have a narrative list that still rocks at a tournament. In fact, a lot of codicies/indicies are written to do just that (though, to be fair, some are much better than others at this). Even back in 7th edition when there were the dreaded formations, these were extremely narrative and thematic army builds.
That being said, the idea is not to purposely handicap your list but making a narrative list to be the priority. This may mean taking less efficient choices to fit the story you’re trying to build. Also, keeping in mind the first part of the Golden Rule, you should be taking a list that will result in a close, fun game for you and your opponent. If your list is both narrative and tournament-winning but your opponent’s list is full of off-meta, suboptimal choices, you should go back to the drawing board and tone it down. Again, this is where the conversation ahead of the game is important.
Other than army building, there are a few other ways to achieve game balance in Narrative Play.
Asymmetrical Missions
A popular concept in narrative gaming is the asymmetrical mission. This can take many forms, from one player having more points, the Defender having more cover, or the Attacker having an advantageous deployment zone. Generally, the mission is balanced by objectives: i.e. the old Meatgrinder mission where the Attacker can return destroyed units to the table but the Defender wins as long as they have at least one model remaining.
These were much more popular in editions before 9th, and the mileage you could get out of them varied. Some were very poorly balanced, while others had wonky mechanics. Despite all that, they were usually quite fun (though if you’re using asymmetrical missions for an event, it is really important that you playtest them, even if they are straight out of an official book).
Something to keep in mind if you want to play an asymmetrical game is to use the lack of symmetry within the game itself. For example, if you want to do a last stand style scenario, don’t make elite Space Marines attacking a bunker full of Tyranids: turn it around. You want that thematic look to the game, and so the Custodes player with 33 models should be deploying as the Defender and the Ork players with 157 models should be attacking.
Of course, charging across a barren no man’s land gives a distinct disadvantage to that player. Think about adding an advantage to the Attacker, such as first turn, a preliminary bombardment, or a night fighting special rule (see below for adapted rules for 10th edition).
The other thing to keep in mind is to keep the objectives flexible. If one player scores more points but is tabled, then it might make more sense to call the game a draw or a pyrrhic victory, especially if the game is part of a larger narrative or a campaign. If the Custodes survive their last stand but the Shield Captain is killed early, perhaps the Custodians need to use a less experienced character as their warlord in the next game.
Balancing as you play
I’ll never forget a game of the Relic I played with my Blood Angels successor chapter, the Storm Guard. I had just cleared my opponent, Jason, off of the objective (and for the life of me, I can’t remember what he was playing) and grabbed the relic with my jump pack captain. He pointed at the captain and declared my hero (and by extension me) a coward if he took to the sky and sped away from the enemy. Naturally, I couldn’t let that stand. Praetor Gideon Red, relic in hand, stormed the enemy guns without a backwards glance.
Naturally, I lost that game.
Though that decision lost me the game, it was narratively the right one. No self-respecting Space Marine captain would flee the enemy holding some mcguffin (at least not in my Chapter).
Again, going back to our Golden Rule of narrative gaming, every decision in a narrative game should be whether or not this helps build the story (but not to the point of it becoming unfun for one or both players). This can mean making ill-advised tactical decisions that put you on the back, albeit cooler, foot. This can sometimes be a great way to swing a game towards a much closer result.
Okay, but is MY army good for narrative play?
Whether or not your army fits into a narrative is so subjective that it’s difficult to come up with hard and fast rules, but generally if you’re worried it’s too competitive, it probably is. Here’s some things to think about when list building for a narrative game:
- If your army is one of the current powerhouses, you should take off-meta choices, even if the good stuff is thematic. If Dark Angel Terminators are currently king, do you want to play Deathwing because of the theme or because it’s a killer list. Be honest with yourself and talk it over with your opponent.
- If you have a theme, stick to it. If you’re doing a White Scars mobile task force, you should probably not take terminators, dreadnoughts, or Whirlwinds. Look at what units fit into the lore of your army and choose those.
- If you’re organizing an event or campaign, consider introducing a composition system. Currently, the army building for 10th edition 40k is extremely open ended. If you feel there isn’t enough to rein in crazy lists, you could require one (or more) battleline unit for every 1,000 points. In almost all cases, this can be worked into the theme of an army. Taking the above White Scars example, a mobile task force would probably have some Rhinos, Razorbacks, or Impulsors carrying basic troops alongside all the bikes. Even if no one else does this, you can adopt this rule for your own army building.
- Pick the highest ranking character to be your Warlord. If your Terminator Chaplain is tougher than your Jump Pack Captain, then you might be tempted to make the Chaplain your Warlord. Just don’t: your Captain outranks the Chaplain, they should be in charge.
- Other than core troops, don’t spam units. Taking multiple squads of Legionaries or White Scars bikes works with the lore of the game; taking three Redemptor dreadnoughts because they’re optimal choices doesn’t. Try limiting yourself to one of every unit outside of your core, thematic picks: this will force you to build a diverse, interesting list.
- For events or campaigns, limiting the number of datasheets that can be used can also be helpful (I’ve kicked around the idea of a max of two, and limiting characters to one). Also, limiting certain keywords: i.e. one CAPTAIN per space marine army. Obviously, this may need to be flexible as some armies want to max out on certain choices for their theme (i.e. the above White Scars player may want to bring three units of outriders), but I would handle these exceptions on a case by case basis.
If you feel like you have to justify your theme, make excuses for your army, or go into extensive detail to explain your list choices, your force probably isn’t suited for narrative play and you should take another look at what you brought.
My opponent didn’t get the memo
As I mentioned above, having that pre-game conversation should iron out most issues with each player’s army. But what if you’re playing at a larger narrative event with minimum or no comp system? Inevitably, you’ll run into a player who’s idea of a narrative list diverges from yours (and before a moron shouts it from the back, winning is not a theme). Personally I just grit my teeth and play my best, seeing the game as a particular challenge and watch in solemn, dignified repose as my models are removed. It’s happened enough times that I hardly cry at all.
For those who don’t want to be martyred on an altar for narrative gaming, if the event allows a large crusade roster or some sort of sideboard, you can have a few units on hand to beef up your list, swapping out a few of the weaker, thematic choices for more hard-hitting, meta picks. Or, if there is no such sideboard, you could add those picks to your army and, against certain opponents, just make more thematic choices during the game that put you at a slight disadvantage to make it a close game. And if you really screwed up and your list is way harder than your opponent’s, you can always reserve your strongest units, having them miss the first few turns.
Do we even need balance in narrative games?
In a campaign, there are potentially lots of harrying engagements that don’t necessarily affect the outcome of the narrative in a direct way. For example, in Honour Guard by Dan Abnett (spoiler for an old Gaunt’s Ghosts book) as an Imperial Guard tank column is heading into the highlands, they are ambushed by Chaos cultists posing as sheppards and coming out of a drove of cattle. This fairly minor engagement is a great action sequence, but doesn’t really affect the overall progress of the column. (Spoiler over).
A dozen Eldar rangers taking pot shots at a Space Marine forward operating base might be a cool narrative moment, but whether or not the Eldar are killed or driven off by a demi-company of marines is a foregone conclusion: we know the xenos are getting crushed. Now, doing a scenario where alien snipers are trying to assassinate an Imperial commander could be a cool mission, but does the Eldar player really want to spend 2+ hours playing out her squads getting slaughtered?
And there’s the question: if a scenario has a foregone conclusion, should you play it? The game is probably not worth playing unless both players are really into it, even if the mission is super narrative (again, consider the Golden Rule where fun comes before everything else). One campaign mechanic which I’ve seen utilized (and have even used myself) is having armies on a map that grow and shrink in size. Although tracking these forces can be a lot of fun, when a 1,750 point army comes up against a 1,200 point force, it’s pretty clear which side’s going to win. Again, if both players are game, have at it, but if one or more players are simply going through the motions for the sake of the story or game mechanics, it’s probably better to walk through the outcome and maybe roll some dice to see what happens, then play a more balanced game.
For example, I was recently playing a crusade game versus Elton’s Tyranids. By the end of the fourth turn, Elton had killed all the units that could potentially score and was ahead on points: I could not win. The only thing I had left on the table was a mostly unharmed unit of Bladeguard. Normally, we’d play it out, but our next opponents were already done their game and waiting, so we just called it there and rolled to see if the Bladeguard survived, saying Elton needed a 3+ to kill them. He rolled a 1, saving me an Out of Action test for my Crusade roster.
Similarly, if your Strike Force army meets someone’s Incursion army on a campaign map, it’s probably better to just randomise which units died and move on to a more fun game. Or, if you’re gungho about your Rangers assassinating a Chapter Master, go ahead and pull the trigger on that game.
It ain’t easy
As we’re all aware, balancing 40k is not easy–that’s part of the reason GW keeps tweaking it–and balancing 10th edition armies for narrative play creates even more of a challenge. Even with the pre-game conversation, painstakingly crafting an army, and swapping lists with your opponent ahead of time, you may still have a tough time balancing narrative games. At the end of the day, it’s just a hard thing to do. Warhammer 40k is a sprawling behemoth of a game with more units and weird interactions than can be counted, plus GW’s rules aren’t always as rigorously playtested as we’d like, which unfortunately seems to go double for narrative content.
If you’re running a narrative event, I would strongly recommend you playtest the missions you’re using, even if they’re official published content. When you’re short on time, even just putting out a few markers on a piece of paper with objectives sketched out can help you figure out if certain victory conditions are too easy to achieve or too punishing.
At the end of the day, you’ll still find there will be unbalanced narrative games, but trying to account for it will go a long way towards making your narrative games more enjoyable.
For further discussion on game balance in 40k in general, Arbitor Ian has a great video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v212wpDBqQk
Cover photo by Jacen, models by Recusant.
Extra rules
Preliminary Bombardment: Before the start of the first Battle Round, roll a D6 for each unit the Defender has on the table. On a 1-3, nothing happens. On a 4+, the Defender can choose to Stand Firm or Take Cover. If the unit Stands Firm, it takes D3+1 Mortal Wounds. If it Takes Cover, it is Battleshocked and -1 to Hit with all its weapons in the first battle round.
Nightfighting: Units more than 36″ away may not be targeted by shooting attacks. When making shooting attacks, any unit that targets a unit more than 12″ away suffers -1 To Hit. Once in each shooting phase, one unit from your army may use a spotlight. If it does so, choose one unit within line of sight of the unit using the spotlight: that unit and the unit using the spotlight may both be targeted and attacked as normal until the start of your next Command Phase.
Dawn Approaches (optional rule with Nightfighting): Starting with the second battle round, roll a D6. On 4+, the Nightfighting rule is no longer used for the rest of the game. On 1-3, the Nghtfighting rule is used for the second turn, but from Turn 3 onwards the Nightfighting rule is no longer in effect (feel free to adjust the target turn if you’d like Dawn to come sooner or later).