Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DnD now is a joke. I'd rather play streetfighter if the only thing I wanted to do was beat stuff up.

Glad I've skipped out on DnD since AD&D.

Racerguy180 wrote:
DnD now is a joke. I'd rather play streetfighter if the only thing I wanted to do was beat stuff up.

Glad I've skipped out on DnD since AD&D.

It's always been an issue with role playing games. I know someone whose adopted the Gensys system to other settings (Star Wars, D&D, Dark Heresy, Shadowrun) and swears by it for making the game more narrative focused than crunchy stat focused.

I don't really see how you'd ever have any rule system that people who want to munchkin on won't munchkin on.

Its a similar issue with Crusade. If people are going to approach it mechanically, its going to play out mechanically. The idea that if GW had fewer/looser campaign rules it would somehow free the imaginations of people who want that doesn't make much sense. If they have that imagination, nothing is stopping them. Narratively you can do whatever you like - you just need a bunch of players who are all on the same page.

Its like asking why D&D doesn't have 50 pages of rules on "how to have a chat in a pub". Players should probably be able to manage that one without undue disagreement.

And DND gives me the tools to handle narrative situations and combat situations well. It gives me narrative reasons to put my sword away and punch the other guy, it gives me narrative reasons to conserve spell slots or ammunition, it gives me narrative reasons to avoid the fight entirely (while still gaining the XP/progression points). It gives me narrative reasons to scout the space ahead of time, or to ensure I've brought utility items such as torches/lamps or potions, etc. It gives me narrative reasons and mechanics for bringing an allied character whether NPCs or a player, and even gives me guidance on how command-and-control works with them (which is more than 40k does, ironically).

Do you know of any wargame that does handle this aspect (to any capacity)?

Mostly because my partner asked the other day why there isn't anything for that in Age of Sigmar (non-violently solving the battle through diplomacy, doing non-battle things) and I couldn't think of anything besides "well, it's a wargame, meant to model war"

I remember Fireforge's Deus Vult game had rules for "scouting" which was a little pre-battle rock-paper-scissors thing but that's about as close as I've seen.

Is there a wargame that you know of where you can non-combatively resolve a battle, or do something besides kill eachother (within the framework of the given rules)?

I don't fault regular 40k for being just a wargame.

Indeed, I wouldn't even fault Crusade if it was advertised (and consequently handled) as just a progression system to use within a wider narrative.

But that's not what crusade is. Crusade advertises itself specifically as a narrative system in its own right, designed such that you can even play narrative games vs people that aren't in Crusade (don't, it's terrible, Crusade is OP).
Maybe other factions are different, but I dont feel like Crusade gives me much narrative. It presents silly and arbitrary hoops that throw extra relics, abilities, and bonuses at me that don't really make much sense.

Rihgu wrote:

And DND gives me the tools to handle narrative situations and combat situations well. It gives me narrative reasons to put my sword away and punch the other guy, it gives me narrative reasons to conserve spell slots or ammunition, it gives me narrative reasons to avoid the fight entirely (while still gaining the XP/progression points). It gives me narrative reasons to scout the space ahead of time, or to ensure I've brought utility items such as torches/lamps or potions, etc. It gives me narrative reasons and mechanics for bringing an allied character whether NPCs or a player, and even gives me guidance on how command-and-control works with them (which is more than 40k does, ironically).

Do you know of any wargame that does handle this aspect (to any capacity)?

Mostly because my partner asked the other day why there isn't anything for that in Age of Sigmar (non-violently solving the battle through diplomacy, doing non-battle things) and I couldn't think of anything besides "well, it's a wargame, meant to model war"

I remember Fireforge's Deus Vult game had rules for "scouting" which was a little pre-battle rock-paper-scissors thing but that's about as close as I've seen.

Is there a wargame that you know of where you can non-combatively resolve a battle, or do something besides kill eachother (within the framework of the given rules)?

Yes!

Chain of Command's campaign system does eventually force the players to fight (of course it does, it is a PVP wargame) but for any given "battle round" the player who has the initiative can:
1) wait for reinforcements
2) choose a map to attack (on the hub and spoke territory system)
3) reconfigure support (send the tank platoon home and call forwards the mortar platoon)
4) dig in

Etc.

The non-initiative player can:
1) if attacked, fight a battle on the map
2) if attacked, concede the map without fighting (e.g. losses will be too high)
3) if not attacked, counter attack
4) if not attacked, reconfigure support

Etc.

Furthermore, during the execution of the game, the C2 rules make it so that bringing on your entire army is actually a DETRIMENT if you don't have the C2 assets to control them. So sometimes leaving your tank support behind/off the board to go forwards with infantry is actually the better choice. In other words, putting away your battleaxe to use your fists is sometimes good.

In campaigns with allies (e.g. France 1940), there are indeed rules for diplomacy checks to see the quality and type of support your force is given by your allied nation.

These diplomacy checks are influenced by the disposition tracks, which are three lines of 'disposition' that the men around you feel in the campaign:
1) the morale of your men (affects their performance / starting morale in battle and can be adjusted by skipping or declining battle)
2) the morale of yourself (as a leader of your force in the setting, more reflective of pressure on your character. If your morale drops too low, that is one way to lose a campaign)
3) the morale of your Commanding Officer, who approves or disapproves of your choices and affects the support from allies and other units accordingly.

So for any given battle, the pressures to decline battle and retreat (or not attack in the first place) must be weighed against the pressures to attack/hold your ground, and indeed sometimes it is advantageous to not fight a battle at all for both players during that campaign turn.

I believe crusade is hamstrung by the fact it needs(apparently) to work vs non-crusade as well.

We were planning a crusade(type) campaign and the first thing the more tourney focused players wanted to know was how to max out their relics,agendas, etc...the more narrative of us saw that and said nope.

So our group(which ranges from me to the opposite) decided just to ditch it and continue to play the way we've been doing campaigns for years, which everyone already agrees on.
Maybe if GW actually works a campaign system to go along with it and they mesh together(crusade+campaign), we'll revisit it.

Also, losses of men and equipment persist between games, which can sometimes force a pause in battle as both sides try to get replacements forward before the next attack.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, losses of men and equipment persist between games, which can sometimes force a pause in battle as both sides try to get replacements forward before the next attack.

I believe GW went with the Battle Scars instead of permanent loss of units to prevent a "rich get richer" situation you can see occur in games like Mordheim.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, losses of men and equipment persist between games, which can sometimes force a pause in battle as both sides try to get replacements forward before the next attack.

I believe GW went with the Battle Scars instead of permanent loss of units to prevent a "rich get richer" situation you can see occur in games like Mordheim.

There typically isn't a rich get richer in CoC because your units don't get much for victory beyond progress towards winning the campaign. The poor can decline battle and trade space for time while they get reinforcements - unless their back is to the wall...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, losses of men and equipment persist between games, which can sometimes force a pause in battle as both sides try to get replacements forward before the next attack.

I believe GW went with the Battle Scars instead of permanent loss of units to prevent a "rich get richer" situation you can see occur in games like Mordheim.

There typically isn't a rich get richer in CoC because your units don't get much for victory beyond progress towards winning the campaign. The poor can decline battle and trade space for time while they get reinforcements - unless their back is to the wall...

shockingly telling people they shouldn't play for a week because they lost the week before is very unpopular with players.

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, losses of men and equipment persist between games, which can sometimes force a pause in battle as both sides try to get replacements forward before the next attack.

I believe GW went with the Battle Scars instead of permanent loss of units to prevent a "rich get richer" situation you can see occur in games like Mordheim.

There typically isn't a rich get richer in CoC because your units don't get much for victory beyond progress towards winning the campaign. The poor can decline battle and trade space for time while they get reinforcements - unless their back is to the wall...

shockingly telling people they shouldn't play for a week because they lost the week before is very unpopular with players.

Campaign turns aren't always a week. They are just the way the campaign counts time.

If you lose Turn 2 on Week 2, you can retreat Turn 3 on Week 3, move the attacker's chit up on the map, roll for replacements/reinforcements, then play Turn 4, still on Week 3. No requirement to sync the turns up to weeks.

Now, the campaigns typically aren't multiplayer, though when they are you will have to play your Turn 3 game on Week 3, to stay synched, but you also have your teammates to lend you support if your force is particularly savaged or badly off.

You know, you guys are right: I shouldn't say no one complains about D&D when I don't spend hours on D&D forums to see whether or not that's true. I have a great DM and great players and that is what allows me to enjoy 5th ed; I totally prefer 3.5. Glad to know that other people dislike 5th as a system. I retract previous statement: obviously no one is complaining about D&D in a 40k forum.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The comparison to DnD aptly illustrates the problems with Crusade, though.

The DnD rules emphasize collaborative storytelling. They mandate a GM who is telling the story, and provide mechanics for interactions that are non-combat related.

This will be harder to do in a game which is not an RPG, although I'll argue later that there are plenty of non-combat options available for Crusaders too. I did read your other post about chain of command, and the campaign system does offer non-combat actions, which is kind of cool. However, I can deconstruct that the same way you deconstruct Crusade. You say "Crusade isn't narrative at all- it's a progression system" I can say "It sounds to me like CoC isn't narrative at all- it's just a campaign system."

Crusade does not include rules for a campaign system in the BRB. This is not to say it does not include rules for a campaign system- you can find them in the first WD Pariah Flashpoint, and a different set in the BoR- one which encourages, though does not mandate a GM by the way. It is clear after all the debate we've had back and forth on this that your primary problem with Crusade is that it doesn't include a forced campaign system as part of it's core rules. I see this as a strength, not a weakness, because I can choose to use either of the campaign systems that have been produced so far, or I can use a map based system if that's what I and the other players want, or a ladder system, or a tree system.

You might have wanted a campaign system, or multiple campaign systems to be in the BRB; me too. I'm sorry they aren't, but complaining that they are in other books is like complaining there's no treasure in D&D because it isn't in the PH or that there are no monster encounters in the game because they only appear in the MM and not the PH or DMG.

Similarly, the fact that the campaign systems work equally well for Crusade, Matched or Open is not a legitimate indictment of either the campaign rules or any of the ways to play. If anything, it's a value-add for versatility.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Every combat encounter is "framed" by non-combat stuff.

This is only true if the GM chooses to include non-combat encounters, which is not mandated by the game. And even if the GM includes these encounters, they still won't occur unless the players choose to engage them. That was my point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How much you see of the combat area is defined by what gear you have and the lighting conditions (dim light to 40 ft, bright light to 20 ft, for example). How many allies you have with you is determined by your diplomacy checks with the guard at the last town. The ammunition you have for your bows/crossbows is determined by how much you brought plus the amount expended in the last encounter. Your spell selection is split between combat and non-combat spells, and some of each may have been spent in your last encounter, etc. etc.

How large a battlefield I play on, as well as how many agendas my army can pursue are determined by how many resources the commander has chosen to devote to securing reinforcement (supply limit) vs. how many they've chosen to allocate to other requisitions- a choice which is a non combat action. (This was the piece in the post you selectively quoted where I explained how the synergy between the core game size mechanics and supply limit are greather than the sum of their parts). The ammunition that I use depends on how many resources a given unit chooses to allocate to upgrading it's weapons vs. acquiring additional skills- another non combat decision. In fact, for both DE and Mechanicus, this is even more complex, because it is affected by my previous efforts at securing territory or collecting components. The Agenda that I choose to pursue during battle can also be a non combat action; currently, my favourites are defiling the sites that are important to my enemies in order to fill them with fear (a DE Agenda) and invoking the Miraculous power of the Emperor (an SoB Agenda).

Just because you choose not to acknowledge or engage with these things (a valid choice BTW) does not mean they do not exist.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The framework for a Crusade game is: "Your armies are both here for the Relic. FIGHT! The winner gets a free relic."

Nope. Not even close.

The unit that achieves the agenda (which may not be a combat action as described above) might choose to claim a relic, or increase their psychic potency, or learn a new skill, and this can happen whether or not they win the battle. What's more, if the commander has chosen to secure enough reinforcements, different units can achieve different agendas and make different choices if they succeed. To further complicate the issue, these are only short term goals- they can also choose to make progress toward longer term goals, such as pursuing sainthood or redemption, or collecting components for later use, or inventing new diseases, or acquiring Territories.

Depending upon the battle (which players can choose or generate randomly as a stand alone game or as part of a larger campaign), there may be additional benefits to the army as whole based on whether they win or lose.

This can be done inside or outside of a campaign framework (or a combination of both) based on the needs of the player.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Everything else is either handled by the core rules or totally absent.

It isn't that simple. As explained above, though game size is a core mechanic, it synergizes with the impact of supply limit by design.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Part of this is due to the core rules and how crappy they are at letting models do anything other than murder each other. As soon as someone says "GO" both armies are basically murderizing each other, so there's little incentive to carefully manage the narrative escalation or even try to figure out why these armies might be fighting.

Objective based play, and the addition of "actions" to the core mechanics changed this; Crusade went even further by a) decoupling Agendas from victory conditions in order to empower players to choose "fluffier" options and b) providing long term goals which can only be achieved over multiple games, and often come at opportunity costs to either winning or skilling up other units. I know that you choose not to pursue these long term goals because they don't fit your story, but you can't pretend they aren't there because you choose not to engage them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It gives me narrative reasons to put my sword away and punch the other guy,

Like how one of my Death Watch Agendas requires me to achieve kills by both ranged and melee?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

it gives me narrative reasons to conserve spell slots or ammunition,

Like how using special issue ammunition for a squad without the datacard ability costs 2 cp unless you devote resources to acquiring it so that it comes at the opportunity cost of other skill acquisitions or how psychic action Agendas prevent you from using combat abilities?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

it gives me narrative reasons to avoid the fight entirely (while still gaining the XP/progression points).

Harder in a miniature game than an RPG, but an army that chose only action based non-combat Agendas could opt to hide (in some cases- often, even non-coms require engagement with objectives, but not always) in order to pursue other goals.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It gives me narrative reasons to scout the space ahead of time,

There likely are agendas to fit this description, though the native support for this isn't as strong as it could be.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

or to ensure I've brought utility items such as torches/lamps or potions, etc.

In the core crusade rules, there's a requisition to change a unit's load out or to respec a psyker's powers; there are battle honours that allow equipment strats to be used at reduced CP costs, and admech are ALL about designing equipment over multiple games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It gives me narrative reasons and mechanics for bringing an allied character whether NPCs or a player, and even gives me guidance on how command-and-control works with them (which is more than 40k does, ironically).

Like attaching an Imperial Agent such as an Inquisitor, or bringing an allied detachment? This latter is way cooler now that it comes at opportunity costs- like if sisters are playing a mission where they deploy across a short board edge and they are worried because they don't have many options for long range firepower, they can bring an IG artillery spearhead, but they won't be able to use Miracle dice if they do- and yet the commander may still deem that long range fire support to be worth the trade.

As for the command and control piece, command is represented by command points, and bringing additional detachments limits command points, cutting down on other battlefield options. Command is also represented by auras, which are more complicated in multifaction detachments since IG auras won't help sisters and vice versa; additional command and control is represented by requisitions that upgrade HQ's to master level.

Just because some of these rules also apply to matched does not diminish the fact that they are a part of playing Crusade. Would it make you feel better if all the matched play rules which also apply to the Crusade system were reprinted in the Crusade section of the BRB? Because you seem to spend a lot of time writing about how poor Crusade is because the rules that do the things you claim can't be done are in a different section of the book.

I've acknowledged that Crusade isn't perfect; that it could use more content. I've acknowledged that I would actually really like a campaigner's handbook designed specifically for Crusade that expanded the game, and if we're lucky, something of the sort may be on the way- Crusade rules appearing in White Dwarf for the first time this month is a huge step in that direction.

So I've really done my part to meet you half way.

The next time Crusade comes up, please don't pretend that relic acquisition is the only goal of the game after I've spent pages of type explaining the differences between battle victory, unit advancement and long term narrative goals, and how these things exist in a state of dynamic tension where any one often comes at the expense of others.

That's how you meet me half way.

Tyel wrote:
I don't really see how you'd ever have any rule system that people who want to munchkin on won't munchkin on...

Construct the game such that by "munchkining" people are engaging with the basic premise of the game. In wargames that usually means "balance the game well enough that you can play 'fluffy' lists and still participate." In RPGs give people mechanical advantage for roleplaying (e.g. WoD/Exalted) and people will get engaged in the roleplaying.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't really see how you'd ever have any rule system that people who want to munchkin on won't munchkin on...

Construct the game such that by "munchkining" people are engaging with the basic premise of the game. In wargames that usually means "balance the game well enough that you can play 'fluffy' lists and still participate." In RPGs give people mechanical advantage for roleplaying (e.g. WoD/Exalted) and people will get engaged in the roleplaying.

Good game design is acknowledging how your players are going to interact with your systems. If mechanics reward anti-social, broken, or negative experiences players will engage in them that way even if it's unintended or bad for the game as a whole. By acknowledging the meta gamer, and putting in mechanics that can curtail that, or transfer that energy in a different way, you can foster a better playing experience for everyone involved in the game.

Arguably real world warfare is munchkin by default - never fight fair, always use the best stuff.

It's only ever limited by cost and availability and deployment practicality.

The problem as I see it, is that a codex doesn't provide you a standing army to draw units from, and thus a hard limit on how many of each you can take.

If a marine codex allowed you to draw only from a battle company, you'd only be able to take 2 assault squads.

You could have auxiliary rules where you can draw from the reserve companies as well, but they wouldn't be a part of the standard order of battle and wouldn't integrate as well (there'd be special rules obvs).

Being free to make your doods, shouldn't allow you to ignore the in-universe practical limitations on what you can deploy.

The rule of 3 is a very dull and unsubtle way of enforcing something like this, but that actually allows something like a marine force to have more then the number of devestator or assault units than a battle company actually has....

 Hellebore wrote:
Arguably real world warfare is munchkin by default - never fight fair, always use the best stuff.

It's only ever limited by cost and availability and deployment practicality.

The problem as I see it, is that a codex doesn't provide you a standing army to draw units from, and thus a hard limit on how many of each you can take.

If a marine codex allowed you to draw only from a battle company, you'd only be able to take 2 assault squads.

You could have auxiliary rules where you can draw from the reserve companies as well, but they wouldn't be a part of the standard order of battle and wouldn't integrate as well (there'd be special rules obvs).

Being free to make your doods, shouldn't allow you to ignore the in-universe practical limitations on what you can deploy.

The rule of 3 is a very dull and unsubtle way of enforcing something like this, but that actually allows something like a marine force to have more then the number of devestator or assault units than a battle company actually has....

The problem with the rule of 3 is that it was limiting in a way that made no sense. I could take 9 leman russ battle tanks, and a tank commander to get 10 leman russes, but couldn't take a 40 man platoon of veterans.

All the whilst people were engaging in crazy soup armies where space wolves and dark angles could be buddies, and soup power combos could still be maximized.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't fault regular 40k for being just a wargame.

Indeed, I wouldn't even fault Crusade if it was advertised (and consequently handled) as just a progression system to use within a wider narrative.

But that's not what crusade is. Crusade advertises itself specifically as a narrative system in its own right, designed such that you can even play narrative games vs people that aren't in Crusade (don't, it's terrible, Crusade is OP).
Maybe other factions are different, but I dont feel like Crusade gives me much narrative. It presents silly and arbitrary hoops that throw extra relics, abilities, and bonuses at me that don't really make much sense.

What if to GW design team the narrative in Crusade way of playing is the different mechanics?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't really see how you'd ever have any rule system that people who want to munchkin on won't munchkin on...

Construct the game such that by "munchkining" people are engaging with the basic premise of the game. In wargames that usually means "balance the game well enough that you can play 'fluffy' lists and still participate." In RPGs give people mechanical advantage for roleplaying (e.g. WoD/Exalted) and people will get engaged in the roleplaying.

I'm not familiar with WoD or Exalted, could you possibly elaborate on how they give mechanical advantages for roleplaying?

 vipoid wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't really see how you'd ever have any rule system that people who want to munchkin on won't munchkin on...

Construct the game such that by "munchkining" people are engaging with the basic premise of the game. In wargames that usually means "balance the game well enough that you can play 'fluffy' lists and still participate." In RPGs give people mechanical advantage for roleplaying (e.g. WoD/Exalted) and people will get engaged in the roleplaying.

I'm not familiar with WoD or Exalted, could you possibly elaborate on how they give mechanical advantages for roleplaying?

Being RPGs, WoD and exalted are a bit different from a wargame. But the basic mechanic would be bonus dice for describing and doing something cool within the narrative.
Rather than the D&D style of attack, you would say “I try and push the dagger though the gap in the armor of his neck” or something and a GM rewards you with extra dice. Exalted combat goes even further with it, but it would be hard to go into that depth for this discussion and keep it relevant I think.
But you can get up to a extra 5 dice which is significantly large in Wod and enough to kill a human in the game with just that roll if you are lucky.

I remember playing a one-shot of a game like that... it was pretty horrible because the people who power-game their character sheets can also power-game that mechanic. Nothing great about listening to someone describing hitting someone else with a sword for 15 minutes for the fourth time in one fight.

You can't force the munchkin out of people, you can only communicate with them or agree that you don't play the same way and split ways.

The next best thing 40k can do is making the best armies that come out of a book actually look like armies in the background - and for most of the 9th edition codices that worked out quite well.

The next best thing 40k can do is making the best armies that come out of a book actually look like armies in the background - and for most of the 9th edition codices that worked out quite well.

What are you smoking, that hasn't been true since 5th ed or earlier. if anything 9th makes them less like the background and more generic.

look at the white scars

9th ed they get to move/advance and still charge... super lore based?

compared to

3rd/4th
special rules-
.born in the saddle
.bike squadrons
.mounted veterans
.counter attack
.flankers
.hit&run
.power lances (nobody else could use them at the time)

Mounted requirements for all units not on bike or with jump packs, bans on slow moving units like dreadnoughts, dev squads etc.. attack bike squads moved to heavy support etc...

Have you actually read the rules and abilities for White Scars? They have most of that still, and you no longer need certain characters to unlock stuff like an all bike army.

Only things off that list they lost were power lances and mounted vets. Both of which have more to do with the Chapterhouse lawsuit tham 9th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and we lost FOC moves for everyone but CSM but that is less important in this edition with how FOC works.

 aphyon wrote:

The next best thing 40k can do is making the best armies that come out of a book actually look like armies in the background - and for most of the 9th edition codices that worked out quite well.

What are you smoking, that hasn't been true since 5th ed or earlier. if anything 9th makes them less like the background and more generic.

look at the white scars

9th ed they get to move/advance and still charge... super lore based?

compared to

3rd/4th
special rules-
.born in the saddle
.bike squadrons
.mounted veterans
.counter attack
.flankers
.hit&run
.power lances (nobody else could use them at the time)

Mounted requirements for all units not on bike or with jump packs, bans on slow moving units like dreadnoughts, dev squads etc.. attack bike squads moved to heavy support etc...

TBH that version of white scars was not the white scars of the fluff but the flanderised version of white scars. 9th white scars are much more fluff oriented.

And I'll agree with what he said. 9th codices play MUCH more like the fluff of each faction and book.

 Galas wrote:
...9th codices play MUCH more like the fluff of each faction and book.

The Deathwatch fluff is that all their advanced equipment and training make them mathematically equivalent to just taking no Chapter Tactics?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galas wrote:
...9th codices play MUCH more like the fluff of each faction and book.

The Deathwatch fluff is that all their advanced equipment and training make them mathematically equivalent to just taking no Chapter Tactics?

It’s very faction dependent, some are very open and anything can be fluffy and lots of options, and others are left struggling to do the same with a pure lack of options.
Inconsistent rules and universe building has been 40k big flaw for a long, long time. And it just filter though each edition as no one atGW has any incentive to fix it, and now even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
I remember playing a one-shot of a game like that... it was pretty horrible because the people who power-game their character sheets can also power-game that mechanic. Nothing great about listening to someone describing hitting someone else with a sword for 15 minutes for the fourth time in one fight.

You can't force the munchkin out of people, you can only communicate with them or agree that you don't play the same way and split ways.

The next best thing 40k can do is making the best armies that come out of a book actually look like armies in the background - and for most of the 9th edition codices that worked out quite well.

Being it’s an entirely GM run mechanic they could stop them at anytime or not reward points. And 15 minutes to describe an attack is yea, maybe you just play with a bad group.
Could even be that you where not getting into the story itself and are not really a compatible player in the group. I can imagine a full scenario for an attack playing out with a 15 minutes interval several times.
But ultimately it’s different as a player driven mechanic so not entirely workable for a wargame without a GM.

Fixed it up since the last bit read a bit mean when not intended >.<

Did we even have Deathwatch rules before 8th?

Didn't have them in 1-3 for sure. Don't think we had them 4-5, but could be wrong- might have been a supplement.

Didn't play in 6th or 7th at all, so I genuinely don't know.

I think I remember a big bully-hurrah in 8th because it was the first time they got their own Codex. Like I said though' maybe supplements.

The thing that makes Death Watch play like their fluff (IMHO) is that it is possible for every non vehicle, non character unit to have Obsec by virtue of Kill Teams, whether those units are Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support.

And while only the Proteus teams have easy access to SIA, ANY unit CAN access it by strat and characters can access it via relic. And if you play Crusade, there's a Battle Honour for units that makes the strat free.

If you combine the chapter tactic with Specialisms, it changes the reroll 1's from the chapter tactic to straight rerolls. And if you play Crusade, characters can benefit from specialisms (thereby getting full rerolls as well if memory serves), and you grant XP bonuses to the Kill Teams that share those specialism to represent the mentorship of the senior officers.

As with everything in 9th, if you analyze just one piece of any dex in isolation from all the other moving parts, it will look like less than what you get once that piece is on the table in its natural habitat.

Edit: The alien specific strats stack with the chapter tactic and specialisms too.

PenitentJake wrote:
Did we even have Deathwatch rules before 8th?

Yes. There was a Codex and everything.

Or, if you're cool like me, you had an entire Deathwatch army before they had rules.

What edition? Just curious?

I thought they had a CA in 3rd, but maybe it was 4th.