Arachnofiend wrote: Given that tacs don't see play (in an era where other firstborn infantry like vanguard vets and terminators do, even) bringing CSM up to parity won't make them see play, either. CSM would have to be better than the equivalent Space Marine models, which... is not happening.
Tacs problem is they're completely outclassed by intercessors. CSMs however could with minimal effort be a slightly differant story. I know I keep harping on this, but if they gave CSMs an extra attack instead of DTFE, and are willing to allow for chainswords and boltguns taken together (not likely I know but it'd help) CSMs could be, points depending, a reasonably decent choice. Let's examine a hypothetical CSM vs Intercessor under these rules for a moment.
Intercessor: S4 T4 2W 3+ save boltrifle: S4 -1 AP, rapid rife 1. 2 melee attacks at AP 0
CSM: S4 T4 2W 3+ save. Boltgun S4 AP 0 rapid fire 1. 3 Melee attacks at AP -1.
so you'd have an army with inferior shooting, but superior Melee (heck 3 S4 ap -1 melee attacks would make CSMs a better melee unit then some armies assault units)
(assuming they don't get the chainsword, yeah CSMs are just going to be intercessors without the boltrifle at best.. not great and they'll proably be about 16-17 PPM..)
BTW I'm going to make a guess that the black legion trait in the 9th edition codex will be +1 Leadership and the ability to act as if they ahd remained stationary when moving or advancing. Seems it'd retain the feel of what black legion was attempting to do in their 8th codex, and it'll be a pretty nice boost.
I don't understand how FB are outclassed. For they same cost you can have a guy with a grav cannon or plasma gun and have more utility with the same durability and less melee.
I think we see selection bias, because people like new models with a cohesive theme.
It's the strategems. Intercessors can fight twice, shoot twice, auto-wound on 6s to hit in melee, and most importantly, only be wounded on a 4+ (which kinda means you aren't getting the same durability like you said). And TACs can, uhhhh....get a 66% chance to do 2d3 MWs on a vehicle if they get stuck in melee with one? Did I miss anything?
Gad, if someone's trying to use a strat to let their intercessors fight twice on you, they're cheating, that strat is assault intercessor only.
Basically SM got more Intercessors to chose from than CSM got troop coiches.
Also similar issue with stratagems like Hellbrute one that disallows the FW hellbrutes because it works with the name i reckon.
Basically SM got more Intercessors to chose from than CSM got troop coiches.
Also similar issue with stratagems like Hellbrute one that disallows the FW hellbrutes because it works with the name i reckon.
You forgot Veteran Intercessors and Death Company Intercessors
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
I'd not have brought it up except you said Intercessors can fight twice AND shoot twice. I'd have left it alone if you said "Fight or shoot twice"
Sorry it's just a mild annoyance of mine where people claim mariens can do "X Y and Z" when it's really "X or Y or Z" it confuses the issue.
Well, we were comparing Intercessors and TACs, and TACs can't do either of those things. I didn't realize we were only talking about basic bolt rifle Intercessors.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
I'd not have brought it up except you said Intercessors can fight twice AND shoot twice. I'd have left it alone if you said "Fight or shoot twice"
Sorry it's just a mild annoyance of mine where people claim mariens can do "X Y and Z" when it's really "X or Y or Z" it confuses the issue.
Well, we were comparing Intercessors and TACs, and TACs can't do either of those things. I didn't realize we were only talking about basic bolt rifle Intercessors.
fair juts it seems unfair to make the comparison, don't get me wrong, intercessors are def a better choice then tac marines for most things, (although Tac Marines can grab a heavy weapon so might have a use as back field objective holders, or even an advance objective holder if they're packing melta)
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
They're making things that should be special rules or equipment into strats. It's annoying.
It's profitable and copyrightable... because the Assault Intercessor TM exists in his separate form double as a kit TM and as a specific name unit coordnination of official material.
This is also the same reason why GW has split out all the specific versions of leutnants, chaos lords, etc into separate Entries instead of equipment options... which in hindsight also didn't help them with their band aid balance patch called Ro3
And that's why we don't have just have a single "Primaris Captain in Gravis Armour" with weapon options, but instead "Captain in Gravis Armour" and "Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle" as separate options.
I still can't believe something so ultramarines-specific is actually in a Codex. It's almost unbelievable. Who writes rules like that?
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're making things that should be special rules or equipment into strats. It's annoying.
Yeah, that's so only one unit can do it per turn and only at the cost of using some other strat.
If these were data card abilities, they'd just curb stomp everyone else in the game. People may think they want these things as datacard abilities, but geez... we complain endlessly about lethality as it is! Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
It's really quite rare for Winters to speak out about something, but he's had it with these books:
PenitentJake wrote: Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
Of course not, but I'd rather the game be less reliant on strats fuelling everything, especially when said strats are only for one specific unit in a book.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're making things that should be special rules or equipment into strats. It's annoying.
Yeah, that's so only one unit can do it per turn and only at the cost of using some other strat.
If these were data card abilities, they'd just curb stomp everyone else in the game. People may think they want these things as datacard abilities, but geez... we complain endlessly about lethality as it is! Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
But honestly, why aren't unit-specific stratagems just printed on the datacard? Do they really need to be a separate stratagem?
HONOUR THE CHAPTER (2CP): At the end of the Fight phase, if this unit is within Engagement Range of any enemy units; it can fight again. Only one unit of ASSAULT INTERCESSORS can use this ability each turn.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the strategems. Intercessors can fight twice, shoot twice, auto-wound on 6s to hit in melee, and most importantly, only be wounded on a 4+ (which kinda means you aren't getting the same durability like you said). And TACs can, uhhhh....get a 66% chance to do 2d3 MWs on a vehicle if they get stuck in melee with one? Did I miss anything?
It's pretty rare to see stuff like transhuman on a 5 man. Same with many of those, because few people take the 10 mans to make them worthwhile.
You have flakk, hammer or wrath ( jump of course ), the hb one, and melta.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's really quite rare for Winters to speak out about something, but he's had it with these books:
PenitentJake wrote: Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
Of course not, but I'd rather the game be less reliant on strats fuelling everything, especially when said strats are only for one specific unit in a book.
Good on him. The more personalities like him speak up in a professional manner the more GW might pay attention. I'm sure all the Charadon books are set in stone, but let's hope this gak goes away in the future.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
I'd not have brought it up except you said Intercessors can fight twice AND shoot twice. I'd have left it alone if you said "Fight or shoot twice"
Sorry it's just a mild annoyance of mine where people claim mariens can do "X Y and Z" when it's really "X or Y or Z" it confuses the issue.
Well, we were comparing Intercessors and TACs, and TACs can't do either of those things. I didn't realize we were only talking about basic bolt rifle Intercessors.
fair juts it seems unfair to make the comparison, don't get me wrong, intercessors are def a better choice then tac marines for most things, (although Tac Marines can grab a heavy weapon so might have a use as back field objective holders, or even an advance objective holder if they're packing melta)
But, you were the one who said:
BrianDavion wrote:Tacs problem is they're completely outclassed by intercessors.
I was agreeing with you. Did I do that incorrectly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's really quite rare for Winters to speak out about something, but he's had it with these books:
It's like a minute into the video that he says he'd prefer it was a 100% narrative book... which I'd agree with, as I've said before. Any army rules in these books (if they should exist at all) should be matched play illegal, made specifically for Crusade campaigns done specifically in the narrative campaign the book is about.
yeah, but GW knows it will sell far more books if it contains matched play rules, without question. We hate it, but people who want the competitive edge just keep on buying it...
Arachnofiend wrote: It's like a minute into the video that he says he'd prefer it was a 100% narrative book... which I'd agree with, as I've said before. Any army rules in these books (if they should exist at all) should be matched play illegal, made specifically for Crusade campaigns done specifically in the narrative campaign the book is about.
thing is he says he'd prefer if it was a narrative book but the question is, would he have bought it if it was? Thats the thing everytime one of these books comes out the only conversation is "what are the new matched play allowable options? are the broken that I can use to beat my opponents? are they something my opponent can use against me?" there's no discussion of the story events or the narrative play stuff case in point the end result of the story gets leaked here and it's barely discussed.
So yeah GW's going to put matched play allowable rules out because thats what gets attention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: yeah, but GW knows it will sell far more books if it contains matched play rules, without question. We hate it, but people who want the competitive edge just keep on buying it...
exactly this, everytime a new book comes out people want it to contain something new and compeitive, if they put out a book that DOESN'T, you see plenty of voices here going "ohh it's a waste it's not compeitive"
All I wish is that they'd keep the Crusade rules to the Crusade books only rather than splitting it between two releases.
Or just forgo the separate Crusade book altogether and put all the Crusade stuff in the single book, rather than splitting them up (especially given that the Crusade book is mostly just reprinting the 40k rules).
GW has shown they can do good campaign books on the AoS side; Broken Realms was great for both narrative content and a bunch of small updates spread across different factions to give flagging elements a bump.
40k has been... a bit different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: All I wish is that they'd keep the Crusade rules to the Crusade books only rather than splitting it between two releases.
Or just forgo the separate Crusade book altogether and put all the Crusade stuff in the single book, rather than splitting them up (especially given that the Crusade book is mostly just reprinting the 40k rules).
Or do a Crusade book along the lines of the one they did for Path to Glory back in 1st edition AoS; providing a basic level of individual content for every army that holds them over until they get a 9th codex. The sheer level of haves/have-nots killed the Crusade experience for me.
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW has shown they can do good campaign books on the AoS side; Broken Realms was great for both narrative content and a bunch of small updates spread across different factions to give flagging elements a bump. 40k has been... a bit different.
Yeah I don't understand why there is Warzone Charadon 01 - The Book Of Rust, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon, and then also Crusade - Plague Purge, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know, because these seems exceptionally unnecessary.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or do a Crusade book along the lines of the one they did for Path to Glory back in 1st edition AoS; providing a basic level of individual content for every army that holds them over until they get a 9th codex. The sheer level of haves/have-nots killed the Crusade experience for me.
I agree but also don't agree. I don't think there needs to be a general 'Crusade' book with individual content for every army that hasn't got a Codex yet. Instead this is what they should use Chapter Approved for (more than what it's become, which is just, as Winters says in his video, a patch you have to pay for).
I've mentioned either in this thread or in others how an early 8th Ed Chapter Approved had a page for a lot of factions that had yet to get a Codex. It had a relic, a Warlord trait, a strat or two - something to combine with their Index list as a kind of 'get you by' situation. I think that should be in a 9th Ed CA - something simple for each army that's yet to get a Codex in a book format where the expectation is that it will be replaced a year later anyway (wouldn't feel as bad as buying Warhammer 40,000: Crusade, only to watch it become less and less relevant as time went on - everyone knows Chapter Approved books are annual things).
The cycle of power creep and wack release cycle for books and constant churn of DLC rules kind of destroyed my interest in the game. Get the codices out already, let the game settle, FAQ the stupid crap, and then consider messing with the game.
Arachnofiend wrote: It's like a minute into the video that he says he'd prefer it was a 100% narrative book... which I'd agree with, as I've said before. Any army rules in these books (if they should exist at all) should be matched play illegal, made specifically for Crusade campaigns done specifically in the narrative campaign the book is about.
thing is he says he'd prefer if it was a narrative book but the question is, would he have bought it if it was? Thats the thing everytime one of these books comes out the only conversation is "what are the new matched play allowable options? are the broken that I can use to beat my opponents? are they something my opponent can use against me?" there's no discussion of the story events or the narrative play stuff case in point the end result of the story gets leaked here and it's barely discussed.
So yeah GW's going to put matched play allowable rules out because thats what gets attention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: yeah, but GW knows it will sell far more books if it contains matched play rules, without question. We hate it, but people who want the competitive edge just keep on buying it...
exactly this, everytime a new book comes out people want it to contain something new and compeitive, if they put out a book that DOESN'T, you see plenty of voices here going "ohh it's a waste it's not compeitive"
Maybe that speaks less about the community and more about the absolute crap quality of the contents of those books?
How many pure campaing Driven books does rpgs sell? How many people bought liber xeonolis or the Realm of Chaos books, pure non Game related books?
The fact GW needs to put (totally unbalanced even by gw standards) competitive rules for people yo buy their narrative content IS not something defendible or that one can Blame the community for.
At least with 8th GW waited for all codex to be out before coming out with Vigilus and PA. The did not had that decency with 9th
I know over in Pathfinder land the Mwangi Expanse book has been wildly successful despite having very few player facing options and even fewer that can be selected at any time other than character creation (it's mostly Mwangi-specific ancestries, one sorcerer bloodline and that's it). Make a good narrative book and people will buy it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW has shown they can do good campaign books on the AoS side; Broken Realms was great for both narrative content and a bunch of small updates spread across different factions to give flagging elements a bump. 40k has been... a bit different.
Yeah I don't understand why there is Warzone Charadon 01 - The Book Of Rust, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon, and then also Crusade - Plague Purge, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know, because these seems exceptionally unnecessary.
Nah, you are absolutely right. There is no reason for the book of rust to exist. The narrative stuff should be with the Plague Purge book and all the other stuff should go into their respective codices.
I've never heard of that winters guy, but I feel the very same as him.
My local LGS put out a facebook message the other day saying that they're considering making the campaign books order only, meaning they won't stock them or even get any copies in unless people specifically order them. This is because interest in them has basically been non-existent in the local area which is especially noteworthy as there is a thriving and active competitive scene around here, with lots of players who have armies featured in the books.
I certainly don't know anyone, online or IRL, who owns the books. Even people using the rules are literally just using pirated pdf's or waha because they refused to spend £35 on the 4 pages of rules they actually want.
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW has shown they can do good campaign books on the AoS side; Broken Realms was great for both narrative content and a bunch of small updates spread across different factions to give flagging elements a bump. 40k has been... a bit different.
Yeah I don't understand why there is Warzone Charadon 01 - The Book Of Rust, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon, and then also Crusade - Plague Purge, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know, because these seems exceptionally unnecessary.
Nah, you are absolutely right. There is no reason for the book of rust to exist. The narrative stuff should be with the Plague Purge book and all the other stuff should go into their respective codices.
I've never heard of that winters guy, but I feel the very same as him.
I remember a time where i got laughed at for pointing at PA and vigilus and describing it as DLC...
I feel validated , a bit atleast.
also i doubly agree with his take on the fact that there are factions that haven't had a dex and instead we get dlc for already updated factions, DLC that is in essence just repackaged cut content.
I'm a crusade fan and want to have more rules for it, but the price to content ratio so far has been bad and I haven't bought a single book with crusade in it apart from my codex and supplement.
Not Online!!! wrote: I remember a time where i got laughed at for pointing at PA and vigilus and describing it as DLC...
I feel validated , a bit atleast.
also i doubly agree with his take on the fact that there are factions that haven't had a dex and instead we get dlc for already updated factions, DLC that is in essence just repackaged cut content.
DLC aren't inherently bad. There is a big difference between getting DLCs some time after your initial product has been launched that add value and having a DLC available within days of the launch with stuff that should just have been in the original product(s).
Not Online!!! wrote: I remember a time where i got laughed at for pointing at PA and vigilus and describing it as DLC...
I feel validated , a bit atleast.
also i doubly agree with his take on the fact that there are factions that haven't had a dex and instead we get dlc for already updated factions, DLC that is in essence just repackaged cut content.
DLC aren't inherently bad. There is a big difference between getting DLCs some time after your initial product has been launched that add value and having a DLC available within days of the launch with stuff that should just have been in the original product(s).
True, i don't object to DLC on that basis, i however completly object to "cut content" DLC and DLC instead of fixing (e.g. updating all faction first before releasing DLC in this case)
And GW sadly has a tendency of the lower.
Further i also object to the quality of the DLC in case.... PA was a shitshow quite frankly, and so was vigilus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrFickle wrote: Now we have chaos rules available before the release of 9th Ed choas codexes, will the rules in this narrative book be in the codex or be excluded?
Excluded, because selling rules is quite profitable for GW.
Bosskelot wrote: My local LGS put out a facebook message the other day saying that they're considering making the campaign books order only, meaning they won't stock them or even get any copies in unless people specifically order them. This is because interest in them has basically been non-existent in the local area which is especially noteworthy as there is a thriving and active competitive scene around here, with lots of players who have armies featured in the books.
I certainly don't know anyone, online or IRL, who owns the books. Even people using the rules are literally just using pirated pdf's or waha because they refused to spend £35 on the 4 pages of rules they actually want.
I've heard the same about the books not selling, at all, from stores locally.
I agree, I absolutely hate content cut and sold as day 1 (or close to) expansions.
But it sells, so they're going to do it.
Maybe in a couple of years they'll release lootboxes that contain special characters and [OP] rules, or random card packs which contain the strategems?
I laugh to hide the pain
My local group disagrees though, think these books are exactly the same as supplement books like Blood Angels or Space Wolves and so they're absolutely fine.
I must say this argument baffles me, but my group consistently comes down on GW's side so that aspect is normal.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh please.... PA was Marines supplement, some broken rules for some , and a whole load of gak for most factions.
Saga of the Beast was awesome for orks and the only bad thing I can say about War of the Spider is that it didn't last long enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: I agree, I absolutely hate content cut and sold as day 1 (or close to) expansions.
But it sells, so they're going to do it.
Maybe in a couple of years they'll release lootboxes that contain special characters and [OP] rules, or random card packs which contain the strategems?
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh please.... PA was Marines supplement, some broken rules for some , and a whole load of gak for most factions.
Saga of the Beast was awesome for orks and the only bad thing I can say about War of the Spider is that it didn't last long enough.
Most of the distaste for PA comes from players (mostly CSM players) of armies that expected their codex to get a total re-write that would bring them up to par with space marines 8.5 which, to be fair was a bit outside the scope of PA...
kirotheavenger wrote: But imagine if the Space Marine Heroes came with their own rules, like Brother Castor was just a Tactical Marine with BS2+
Like the Imperial Space Marine from 7th with his super combi-gun that never ran out of ammo (back when combi-weapons were one shot).
With a game focused as much on visuals as 40k, I don't think they need to go down that route. Plenty of games get filthy rich just on cosmetic changes, while game changing lootboxes require more effort and have the potential to hurt you.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh please.... PA was Marines supplement, some broken rules for some , and a whole load of gak for most factions.
Saga of the Beast was awesome for orks and the only bad thing I can say about War of the Spider is that it didn't last long enough.
Most of the distaste for PA comes from players (mostly CSM players) of armies that expected their codex to get a total re-write that would bring them up to par with space marines 8.5 which, to be fair was a bit outside the scope of PA...
And yet F&F did rewrite Black templars and gave them content with the same ammount of pages how many other legions got?
To state that it isn't fair to expect that is a bit hyperbolic imo.
War zone charadon book 1 is on the 40K app, but book 2 isn’t yet. I’m assuming the disciples of belakor rules will be in the app including the army builder eventually so that helps me avoid buying the book.
So if they are relying on the additional rules to sell these books then Warhammer + subscriptions will undermine this
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh please.... PA was Marines supplement, some broken rules for some , and a whole load of gak for most factions.
Saga of the Beast was awesome for orks and the only bad thing I can say about War of the Spider is that it didn't last long enough.
Most of the distaste for PA comes from players (mostly CSM players) of armies that expected their codex to get a total re-write that would bring them up to par with space marines 8.5 which, to be fair was a bit outside the scope of PA...
My distaste for PA was just how milquetoast it was. It was hyped as the biggest thing to happen to 40K in forever, and yet was just a whimper rather than a bang, with fething NAME GENERATORS taking up stupid space in each one. Complete low-effort offerings.
I agree, I remember when they were hyping up psychic awakening, people were discussing it being this huge jump in 40k, perhaps every army would be getting new units with psychic powers and stuff!
Nope, not even close. Just more shovelware.
PA was a sham, and even as everyone knew that as the books got rolled out they got bought because of the competitive side of the hobby. The idea that there are some extra rules or corrections in these books that gonna enhance your armies performance is too much temptation
I will disagree with the Vigilus books though. There is enough usable content in there outside of the specialist detachments. I have played many of those missions in narrative and if you pick up a 40K Risk game, you have a decent Vigilus map to run a campaign using the books.
To correct an earlier error: they did not wait until all the dexes were out for Vigilus. They did with PA (except for sisters, but it was weird because of the CA Beta), but not Vigilus.
Further, anyone knocking PA: it certainly wasn't perfect. But please remember that it was the delivery mechanism for:
Drazhar and Incubi
Jain Zaar and Banshees
Mephiston
Shadowson
Ghazkull and Ragnar
Aleya and Dude (plus Talons keyword and SoS strats!)
Ephrael Stern and Kyganil
Kyria Draxus
Fabius Bile
It proved that campaign books are a viable way to move models WITHOUT AN EDITION RESET, and as we are seeing, the edition reset is the thing that causes more problems than anything else.
I think GW released 9th so they could put in the 4 game sizes and Crusade; other changes could have been handled with a FAQ. Hopefully their plan is to use campaign books to support model releases from here on in; with the infrastructure they brought to the game in 9th, they really don't need another edition ever again.
I know, it's unrealistic to wish for a persistent edition; I drank the Kool-Aid when they made the promise for 8th, so I'm reluctant to set my expectations too high. But they really have created and established so many support systems for multiple ways to to play and game sizes that they'd have a hard time rebuilding it all if they choose to tear it down.
They have to know that edition churn could cost them quite a few of the new players they've gained. I consider them lucky that 9th didn't cost them all their gains from 8th. They almost lost me, and if there's another edition after this one, they WILL lose me.
PenitentJake wrote: But please remember that it was the delivery mechanism for:
Drazhar and Incubi Jain Zaar and Banshees Mephiston Shadowson Ghazkull and Ragnar Aleya and Dude (plus Talons keyword and SoS strats!) Ephrael Stern and Kyganil Kyria Draxus Fabius Bile
A scattered handful of special characters? Wow.
PenitentJake wrote: It proved that campaign books are a viable way to move models WITHOUT AN EDITION RESET, and as we are seeing, the edition reset is the thing that causes more problems than anything else.
They've done campaign books and moved models in the past without needing to reset the edition. And besides, PA was all about building up to the new edition. It was intrinsic to the new edition as it was there to give every Codex an update prior to the new edition coming out.
And Deathwatch and Harlis got to be in WD rather than books.
PenitentJake wrote: I know, it's unrealistic to wish for a persistent edition; I drank the Kool-Aid when they made the promise for 8th, so I'm reluctant to set my expectations too high. But they really have created and established so many support systems for multiple ways to to play and game sizes that they'd have a hard time rebuilding it all if they choose to tear it down.
I don't think anyone is realistically wishing for a persistent edition, but they could at least wait until the ink is dry on one before launching another?
thing is he says he'd prefer if it was a narrative book but the question is, would he have bought it if it was? Thats the thing everytime one of these books comes out the only conversation is "what are the new matched play allowable options? are the broken that I can use to beat my opponents? are they something my opponent can use against me?" there's no discussion of the story events or the narrative play stuff case in point the end result of the story gets leaked here and it's barely discussed.
How much Winters/DZTV have you watched? I don't mean that in an accusatory way, just saying that the guy is definitely a consumer of black library/narrative stuff that GW puts out. I don't know about that book in particular but Winters probably buys plenty of GW stuff that's narrative only.
I gave charadon 1 a shot purely on a fluff and crusade basis and regretted it. The story within has been meh (haven’t quite finished it to be honest).
I skipped both vigilus and all of PA and felt just fine about it.
Once I saw the CSM content that’s being thrown into book of fire, I knew I was done with any and all future campaign books that contain matched play rules. The fact that that stuff—which is literally just a poorly reformatted reprint—isn’t a free PDF is unforgivable.
And I don’t even play CSM
If GW wants to add new models mid-cycle, just put out a free datasheet PDF or add it to the app for subscribers.
For my part, I think DLC is fine. I thought PA was a good way to pad out an edition with some genuinely useful stuff and fun ways to play the game. Still sad that Sisters and Necrons never got theirs, but hey, we were released early in 9th, it all shakes out.
But the minute you start scattering rules for a given faction across different books, I'm out. I won't buy them. I'll buy my codex, I'll buy my PA book a year later; as soon as you start asking me to buy 3+ books just to have all the rules to my army, I'm gone.
The Sisters PA was in Pariah- it was just the rules for Stern and Kyganil, so there wasn't much there, but you're correct- with the codex only a few months earlier, it had definitely been designed with 9th in mind, so other than the data sheet for Stern, not much was necessary.
And sure, while GW COULD put datasheets for new units online or add them to the app, expecting them to do this is less realistic than asking for a persistent edition. GW will only consider a persistent edition if profit is equal to edition churn, which means they have to be able to sell models AND books without resetting. PA proved this is possible.
PenitentJake wrote: Further, anyone knocking PA: it certainly wasn't perfect. But please remember that it was the delivery mechanism for:
And? GW can sell models without needing an entire series of books to do it.
bullyboy wrote: I will disagree with the Vigilus books though. There is enough usable content in there outside of the specialist detachments. I have played many of those missions in narrative and if you pick up a 40K Risk game, you have a decent Vigilus map to run a campaign using the books.
The main/obvious problem with Vigilus was that the narrative was absolute GARBAGE.
Forge the narrative people! Just don't think about whether it makes a lick of sense!
I skipped Vigilus, but I have 5 or 6 of the PA books. I have the Book of Rust, and I will be getting the Book of Fire.
I am likely to play all 54 Charadon Missions at some point; the official GW campaign will be long over by the time it happens, but I don't have any doubt that it will happen.
Assault Intercessors aren't Intercessors?
