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.

the double turn thing is ok in AoS, would be more of a problem in 40k where ranged combat is a much larger part of the game.

to make it work would need an activation mechanic like Chain of Command where you are not using your whole army each turn anyway for the most part - and when your command dice do give you the double turn you will be activating even fewer units now and leaving it to the dice gods how many you activate the turn after

heck triple and more turns are possible there.

however I cannot see GW ever swapping how the turn activation goes away from IGOYGO, it becomes a totally different game then and just can't see it

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
To be fair, yes, one more instance of GW not knowgin where exactly it is steering its boat.

Don't know how the change from 2nd to 3rd went as far as tone change, but clearly the gathering storm one didn't go that clean and smooth I think.

Meh, the tone change was partly aesthetic, partly turning the Eldar from a tragic dying race into one that has a substantial (hmmm, ponders site rules) pain-infliction-positive community.

The core game design issue was melee vs shooting and whether space marines were multi-capable elite warriors or just cheap dudes in power armor who were willing to die in order to score plasma hits.

Battle Tech knows what it is. It's got factions, they change, the storyline moves here and there, but the core notion is that Mechs are big, dominating but entrepreneurs who can manage to scavenge a few might actually make a difference. It's basically the old D&D concept of a party collecting enough loot to buy a castle merged with the free companies of old. As a storytelling device, that's pretty cool, and I get why it still resonates.

GW has an increasingly tenuous connection with its past, and it feels like they compelled the founders to leave their notebooks under pain of lawsuits and have been combing through them looking for ideas ever since.

vict0988 wrote:Ambiguous world-building is pretty neat IMO, there are plenty of sci-fi settings where everything is made available and clear. But 40k does not have any authoritative sources like Startrek has its federation, that's part of the grimdark appeal.

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I also like the fact that not everything is outright stated and that you have got more than enough rooms to make your custom stories and armies, that's the primary interest of 40k to me.

That has changed a lot over time, though. Once upon a time the game's narrative was poised on 999.M41 at the climax of a bunch of unfolding events, with players having the scope to set their games anywhere across millennia of future history, and you could bring named characters (some of whom were long dead by 999.M41) but only with your opponent's permission because this is a game about Your Dudes. Now there's an evolving story revolving around a cast of named characters, people who are dead don't get rules anymore, and bringing an actual primarch is just business as usual.

See also: The Horus Heresy, and how hints of shreds of myths of legends were turned into an agonizingly comprehensively explained novel series where the universe bends and shifts at the beck and call of a handful of WWE personalities and their daddy issues. The writers even play a literary game of Twister to avoid explaining why two legions are missing, originally nothing more than a throwaway line intended as a historical reference to the Roman lost legions.

It's a pretty stark difference in tone, and ties back to what Toussaint is saying about the increasingly tenuous connection with its past. Old GW was a bunch of nerds applying the satirical counterculture tropes of their era to the traditionally conservative pastime of historical wargaming along with a healthy dash of make-your-own-story roleplay. Modern GW is more interested in character-focused ongoing narratives, and so out of touch with their own roots that they gave the authoritarian ubermensch a literal halo on the front of their rulebook and then wondered why they have to remind people that fascism is bad.

What you describe is overall how I feel, but please keep the "fascism in 40k" thing at bay lest it kills another thread !

My brother just had a game of 10th and kind of change his mind because it is more simple and straightforward. To be fair his whole explaination sounded like the emptiness of space because the Battlereport was more or less everybody charges T2 because everyone is at range of everything and the climax of strategy was to drop strike drop a unit of beasts of nurgle on top of someone.

I also read the rules myself, I can't believe how plain it looks. Maybe I'm just a masochist who likes good fat rules bringing a lot of potential actions and manœuvres though. (By the way yes I am intend on trying 2'd ed someday )

However the change to strategems makes them a lot less cancerous apparently, but again, from his recounting of the game, it was pretty much a brain dead brawl with trap cards flying across the room.

Then I read a french site's review of it comparing 10th to the debut of AoS, as in, ork-medicine level experiments to steer the game back from competitive to casual by even simpler rules.

Just sharing my septicism mostly when he then told me that 4ty apocalypse games we play were the same as 10th with just mindless shooting a 2 strategems both sides, which might explain why he lost them

 catbarf wrote:

That has changed a lot over time, though. Once upon a time the game's narrative was poised on 999.M41 at the climax of a bunch of unfolding events, with players having the scope to set their games anywhere across millennia of future history, and you could bring named characters (some of whom were long dead by 999.M41) but only with your opponent's permission because this is a game about Your Dudes. Now there's an evolving story revolving around a cast of named characters, people who are dead don't get rules anymore, and bringing an actual primarch is just business as usual.

.

The game has changed. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Staying the same isnt necessarily better either. Not changing also leads to stagnation.


I mean, I remember literal decades of people complaining about the game clock being permanently stuck at a minute to midnight m41.999 and the story never moving or changing. I remember being amazed at warmachine/hordes continuously-moving-forward story. Things changed. Nations fell. characters changed and evolved. Some (a rare few, mind!) died, and some of those didn't even come back.

 catbarf wrote:


It's a pretty stark difference in tone, and ties back to what Toussaint is saying about the increasingly tenuous connection with its past. Old GW was a bunch of nerds applying the satirical counterculture tropes of their era to the traditionally conservative pastime of historical wargaming along with a healthy dash of make-your-own-story roleplay. Modern GW is more interested in character-focused ongoing narratives, and so out of touch with their own roots that they gave the authoritarian ubermensch a literal halo on the front of their rulebook and then wondered why they have to remind people that fascism is bad.

Im not sure where i stand on 'the increasingly tenuous connection with its past'. To me its more a case of 'times change and Tastes change'. What worked in the 80s won't necessarily work now. Not moving forward trends to stagnation and decay. Just as bad, in my opinion.

The 'character focused narratives' for example have been a thing for 15 or 20 years. Its almost been there longer than not at this point. And its not a gw-led thing at all. It's what people want. Comics have been doing it since the 30s and the marvel superheroes that surround us now are just one expression if it. I remember meting jervis at an Irish con years ago where he talked about it. They did the 3rd Ed 'your doods, your universe' approach because they thought that what people wanted.what people actually wanted for the most part was more stories/lore focused around 'names'. Named characters, names chapters etc. Not 'your doods'. Gw simply catered. Warmachine gained ground in part because of the character-centric nature of the game and the characters intertwined stories (vlad, sorscha and the butcher, Caine, Magnus and vinters secret son etc). Malifaux is name-driven. Gw isn't an outlier here, by a long shot.

I don't think they are 'out of touch' with their roots. The satire is still there. If anything, rountree era gw is keaning into it harder than kirby era gw -The regimental standard stuff (one example) on warhammer community had plenty witty and outright funny goings-on. Personally I like that the satire is just not spoon-fed to you and highlighted in bright neon lighting TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE OBVIOUS- i find that kind of 'hand-holding' to be rather insulting and nore than a little patronising. The stuff that made the game fun is still there for self-discovery and exploring the game and finding out for and by yourself.

I find ongoing narrative interesting- as a storyteller/ GM/ Campaign player, it's another tool that I can use; though it can pose challenges. Having Morvenn Vahl and Junith Eurita means that I'm not ascending any of my girls to Abbess or Canoness Superior of the Order of Our Martyred Lady. There are five other orders without a Canoness Superior though.

In 8th, I set a campaign in Pacificus- rimward of Hydraphur on the fringe of known space; I did that to facilitate cameo appearances by BSF characters en route to or from Precipice.

I haven't run my 50 Shades of Eldar campaign yet, but Yvraine and the Ynnari working with each of the factions to recruit soldiers to her cause is a great story hook. What's interesting is that none of the Ynnari Triumvirate are ideal for Crusade play since named characters are frozen in time and can't earn Battle Honours. So Yvraine's "job" is to recruit and train generic Warlords that can take over the mantle... And then we create convenient story excuses for her to be away.

As for satire, I think it's better when we bring our own. British satire was great in the 80' and even 90's when the game was mostly a British game... But on my side of the pond, a white haired, un-helmed, saxophone playing noise marine named Kill Binton might have been a better satire than Gazkull Mag Uruk Thrakka, cuz the Thatcher satire was kinda lost on me. And Kill Binton would also be a generic Chaos Lord, so he grows via Crusade.

I didn't buy the Hasslefree Miniatures chaos Trump model... But I came very, very close.

As for the game being disconnected from its roots, my Ambull and Zoat are looking to party with some squats for the first time since '92. And don't get me wrong- mechanically we have moved away from the game's origins. 40k is less of a wargame than it has been...

Strats are magic cards, CP is mana, and I get why wargame die-hards hate that. Crusade turns 40k into an RPG, which 40k hasn't been since Rogue Trader, and I get why die-hard wargamers don't that either. This won't make me any friends on Dakka, but with the exception of 40k, I find even mediocre CCGs and RPGs far more interesting than the vast majority of wargames. I'm sure Command and Conquer and Dust are great games, and if my friends bought them, and if they had spare armies, Id play... But I,m never going to invest in it, because I,m not a Wargamer.

Deadnight wrote:
-The regimental standard stuff (one example) on warhammer community had plenty witty and outright funny goings-on. Personally I like that the satire is just not spoon-fed to you and highlighted in bright neon lighting TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE OBVIOUS- i find that kind of 'hand-holding' to be rather insulting and nore than a little patronising. .

I honestly can't reconcile that stance with liking Regimental Standard. Its painfully and exactly obvious on-the-nose handholding for the 'joke,' with bright lights and everything.

Rogue Trader may have originated as a satire (i.e. throw out anything, presumably at least partially for laughs) - but I feel from 2nd (much clearer definitions of what is in and what is out) through to 5th we are on world building. (5th being I think when various existing factions got significant re-writes to their lore/character.)
Then we move more into more character-based narratives.

I mean if 3rd edition was meant to be a satire then it seemed to pass everyone by (although admittedly, we were teenagers). I think its much more reasonable to say it was trying to define "Grim Dark" in a more concrete way, given the major lore developments of 2nd edition codexes and other material. I mean what was satirical about the 2nd edition Eldar Codex? Or say the Tyranid Codex? "Its a send up of Alien/Starship troopers." "...but how do lots of descriptions of Guardsmen getting mulched send them up?"

I guess you can say Gathering Storm broke new ground for finally going past 999.M41 (initially in a big way - only for it to then be retconned back, and now... idk its basically as you were but there are Primaris and Primarchs). But I don't think this was dramatically different to say Magnus coming back or say the Damocles Campaign and various other things they were trying.

I guess for a perhaps stretched analogy - Judge Dredd was originally a satire. I get that. Once however you have people nerding out over the technicalities of what ammunition Judge guns can use - or people writing stories in the universe that have no obvious critical target, then its not really satire any more. Its just a universe. I feel 40k hit that point decades ago.

Tyel wrote:
I mean if 3rd edition was meant to be a satire then it seemed to pass everyone by (although admittedly, we were teenagers). I think its much more reasonable to say it was trying to define "Grim Dark" in a more concrete way, given the major lore developments of 2nd edition codexes and other material. I mean what was satirical about the 2nd edition Eldar Codex? Or say the Tyranid Codex? "Its a send up of Alien/Starship troopers." "...but how do lots of descriptions of Guardsmen getting mulched send them up?"

The entertainment of the 90's is basically defined by missing the satire in late 80's British fiction.

I often feel any good satire in 40K has been thoroughly beaten out of the setting.

References to it sure, but I think it’s thin and stretched now.
And trying to stand its own as a serious setting, feels shallow since they don’t really want to step it up and deal with some of the setting themes.

I do like some of the in universe jokes and humour that they have put in some recent stuff.

For the more narrative, I think the super elite Space marines have hurt them more narrative within the game.
There isn’t much space for them to be super elite, when half the game is even more elite and so many guns exist that treat a space marine like a grot when it hits.

I for one wish they'd be more proud of their "pick your flavor of bad guy; the only good guys are the dirt-farming peasants." Instead they're whitewashing the Astartes into super heroes, and the only bad guys are the ecclesiarchy. Lame.

I also don't know why they can't support "your dudes" right alongside "the dudes." I love plenty of the lore with Cain and Farsight but I still created my own armies to play the game. Would love to see a return of the "here's the tools to make your own chapter" stuff return.

Edit: I haven't gotten the chance to play Crusade yet but I love TTRPG's so I appreciate GW for continuing to support it.

It's perfectly acceptable for some of the satire to fade, and for some of the in-jokes to lose their bite, especially as some of the humor might rub people the wrong way in the present day.

That being said, I feel that the rules/fluff interface is badly broken. Third edition was the first instance of this, where things written in the fluff could no longer happen due to the rules mechanics. The excuse given was that one had to regard the rules as an abstraction, but the whole form of combat was altered.

And it continues to do that with each new edition.

It's not just that the rules shift, it's that their representation of reality also shifts. Consider the Rhino. It's basically an M113 APC - a simple design modified endlessly to do all sorts of things. But look at how its performance and effectiveness has changed over time! No modern combat system could survive that level of fluctuation - people wouldn't put up with some of the weird things GW has asked Rhinos to do.

Yet somehow, the game continues.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

It's not just that the rules shift, it's that their representation of reality also shifts. Consider the Rhino. It's basically an M113 APC - a simple design modified endlessly to do all sorts of things. But look at how its performance and effectiveness has changed over time! No modern combat system could survive that level of fluctuation - people wouldn't put up with some of the weird things GW has asked Rhinos to do.

Such as? Serve as the base chassis for a great # of vehicles? Ferry squads about the battlefield? Or do you take exception that in some editions it's had a self-repair function? Or is there something else?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Yet somehow, the game continues.

Because this isn't real life. Nor is it a game trying to simulate real life. So long as the game is fun enough? It doesn't matter what fantastical abilities GW ascribes to a Rhino that a real world M113 could never do.

PenitentJake wrote:
This won't make me any friends on Dakka, but with the exception of 40k, I find even mediocre CCGs and RPGs far more interesting than the vast majority of wargames. I'm sure Command and Conquer and Dust are great games, and if my friends bought them, and if they had spare armies, Id play... But I,m never going to invest in it, because I,m not a Wargamer.

Then why not play one of the RPGs in the 40k setting, games that will do far better with the kind of character-focused story you want to tell? It seems like you're putting a ton of work into trying to bend a wargame, and specifically the matched play army-scale format for that wargame, into something it isn't and the much easier option would be to play a game that is designed to be the thing you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
what people actually wanted for the most part was more stories/lore focused around 'names'. Named characters, names chapters etc. Not 'your doods'. Gw simply catered.

What some people wanted. This is a textbook example of theme park vs. sandbox design. 40k was originally a sandbox game where the official material provided a background for your games and your stories but you were expected to do your own cool things within that world. You were expected to make your own characters, convert models to customize your army, build your own terrain, etc. Modern 40k OTOH has swung hard in a theme park direction where GW hands you a carefully scripted package to follow. Choose your characters and units from the list of official options, build and paint your models exactly according to the instructions, and play standard games on standard GW terrain. There's less work to do to get started but it comes at a high price in loss of creativity.

Was this the right move by GW? Maybe. Given their continued targeting of high-turnover kids and starter box sales there's certainly a business argument to be made for dumbing down the setting and being able to sell a new customer a neat little package where all they have to do is follow the script and have a good time, that most of those 14 year olds would dump the game and go back to playing video games if they have to spend a few minutes coming up with their own ideas. But it's hardly the only right move as the immense popularity of sandbox games in other contexts demonstrates. Lots of people love having a background for creating their own stories free from the constraints of official characters and events, it's just not the same market GW is targeting.

Warmachine gained ground in part because of the character-centric nature of the game and the characters intertwined stories (vlad, sorscha and the butcher, Caine, Magnus and vinters secret son etc). Malifaux is name-driven. Gw isn't an outlier here, by a long shot.

This is just plain wrong though. Maybe you enjoyed the story aspects of Warmachine but you were in the minority here. Warmachine succeeded because it was a tournament game that had the good fortune to release at a point where GW was busy running their core product lines into the ground. 7th edition 40k was a degenerate mess of broken mechanics on top of broken mechanics, WHFB was a dead game being killed off to extract the final bits of profit, and AoS was literally unplayable without making up a bunch of house rules to finish the stuff GW didn't bother to write. The majority of Warmachine players were tournament-focused GW veterans who bailed on GW and grabbed the best tournament alternative. Few bothered to paint their models or make terrain and hardly any of them knew anything about the story beyond a sentence or two on the unit cards.

The proof here is what happened to WM/H. GW got their act together and produced something resembling a functioning game, PP started screwing up the rules, and suddenly despite all of those characters and all of that lore still being around exactly as it was WM/H faded out to the point that PP had to resort to selling 3d printed stuff to launch a new edition. If people genuinely cared about the characters of WM/H we would have seen a much larger community remain despite the rule changes by both companies.

Personally I like that the satire is just not spoon-fed to you and highlighted in bright neon lighting TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE OBVIOUS- i find that kind of 'hand-holding' to be rather insulting and nore than a little patronising.

The problem is that a lot of people don't read deeply enough to see the subtle stuff. If the superficial impression is all they get then having the superficial impression be 100% playing it straight with the fascists as heroic defenders of humanity then it gets into problematic territory really fast.

ccs wrote:

Such as? Serve as the base chassis for a great # of vehicles? Ferry squads about the battlefield? Or do you take exception that in some editions it's had a self-repair function? Or is there something else?

The rhino's effectiveness as an actual transport has certainly varied over the years. In some editions, they worked fine as transports, although with their role switching between dedicated transports or free-for-all taxis. In other editions they were just used predominantly for mobile cover. In 2nd, rhinos were mostly just used to deploy blind grenades and ram enemy tanks.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


Then why not play one of the RPGs in the 40k setting, games that will do far better with the kind of character-focused story you want to tell? It seems like you're putting a ton of work into trying to bend a wargame, and specifically the matched play army-scale format for that wargame, into something it isn't and the much easier option would be to play a game that is designed to be the thing you want.

I have- I loved Dark Heresy.

But 9th ed Crusade was just as much fun, and most of the work was done for me. The amount of work I brought to the game was no more or less than the work I bring to any RPG, including Dark Heresy.

BTW, if you like RPGs as much as I do:

https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/174069/Dark-Heresy-BUNDLE

ccs wrote:
Because this isn't real life. Nor is it a game trying to simulate real life. So long as the game is fun enough? It doesn't matter what fantastical abilities GW ascribes to a Rhino that a real world M113 could never do.

Obviously, it is a 'secondary world,' but as such there are still certain expectations regarding consistency.

If a Rhino is described as a battle taxi, but best functions as a battering ram, that's a problem. If it then shifts to mobile cover, that's also an issue.

The same is true of weapons and troop types. They're all over the place. A tactic that will dominate in one edition is suicide in the next. Call it GW over-correcting, but it undermines the integrity of the product. No one would tolerate an X-wing being portrayed as a nimble fighter in one set of rules and then re-released as static artillery in space.

That's the real issue with the churn - it's not just the changing mechanics, it's the massive shifts in how the secondary world operates through them. Are Dreadnoughts dominating battlefield weapons or merely up-armored Sentinels? Is shooting the focus of the game or assault combat?

I confess that I don't know. Not only do I not know what it is now, I have no idea what it will be in three years. So why "get current?"

PenitentJake wrote:
But 9th ed Crusade was just as much fun, and most of the work was done for me.

Maybe, but only because you're working with some weird self-imposed limits that don't make any sense outside of the matched play world. Like, you mentioned that named characters don't get XP and Crusade upgrades but why does that have to be the case? Why do you need to play by the official rules here instead of letting named characters advance like any other character? It's not like you're playing in tournaments where everyone needs to use the standard rules but you seem to consider yourself bound by that tournament mindset. If you dumped the tournament mindset and started customizing the game to fit your needs you'd probably find yourself investing a lot more work in it.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:



Maybe, but only because you're working with some weird self-imposed limits that don't make any sense outside of the matched play world.

1. Using words like "weird" to describe my preferences in a game, and saying "they don't make sense" are examples of antagonistic troll-speak; my preferences don't need to make sense to you, because they are MINE. I respect your preferences, and your right to play the game the way YOU want to, so some reciprocity would be appreciated.
2. They limits aren't self imposed; they are the printed rules, and leaving as many of them alone as I can eliminates some of that "work" you think I have to do to play.
3. I understand your argument when you refer to Crusade as a Matched Play system (though for the record, I disagree). However, within the context of Crusade play vs. not-Crusade play, the misuse of the term creates confusion, and is an unusual hill to die on.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Like, you mentioned that named characters don't get XP and Crusade upgrades but why does that have to be the case? Why do you need to play by the official rules here instead of letting named characters advance like any other character?

Well, because the upgrades built into a named character represent the same types of upgrades "my dudes" earn. Named characters have a backstory already- Calgar didn't begin his career as a Marine with the gauntlets of Ultramar- they are what I see as the equivalent of a Legendary Crusade Relic. His stat buffs above and beyond a generic character of his type represent other advances. The basic principle behind the design is that in Crusade, generic characters represent relatively green units; leaders obviously have experience- a captain does have experience as a regular solder, as a sergeant, as lieutenant... But he's relatively new to his role as a Captain. By the time the unit hits Legendary, it is the EQUIVALENT of a named character.

An ACTUAL named character, on the other hand, is already legendary (or at least heroic) when they are added to your roster.

And again, you're free to disagree... And of course you will, you're Owl.

But I think that my thoughts on this particular issue probably are probably consistent with thoughts of most people who like and play Crusade; further, I think they're really obvious to most of us, and many of us are probably surprised that you can't see that it makes sense from both a fluff perspective and a mechanical perspective. The other thing a more cynical person might assume is that you DO see it, but just enjoy being contrary.

I'm not going to speculate about which of those two scenarios is true; you're entitled to your opinion... Just don't expect it to change mine

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

It's not like you're playing in tournaments where everyone needs to use the standard rules but you seem to consider yourself bound by that tournament mindset. If you dumped the tournament mindset and started customizing the game to fit your needs you'd probably find yourself investing a lot more work in it.

As explained above, I adhere to the rule because makes sense from both a lore and a mechanics perspective... And you're right, it would be a lot more work if I didn't adhere to the rule, which is another (albeit minor) reason that I do. The rule makes sense and feels right to me and the people I play with, so we use it.

And to be clear, the traits that I ascribe to "the tournament mindset" are a) stand-alone pick-up games, and b) making decisions about army composition with at least some thought toward optimization in order to be competitive. The former is not the way I choose to play and the later is not how I choose to build my lists. You'd have a very hard time thinking my GSC starting roster was built for competitive purposes:

Patriarch
5 x Purestrains (x3)
Platoon Command Squad
10 x Death Korps of Krieg

Supply Limit is 500, but Army weighs in at 465, so I've got room to add enhancements once the story determines which are appropriate (probably take one when the Patriarch reaches Blooded and another once the Platoon Command reaches Blooded). I won't be playing with the specific intention of racing those units to Blooded just to get the perks either- rather, I play the Mission and the Agenda, and let the upgrades come when they come. Blooded does come fast, and of course there's a chance that I can hit Blooded with both units after a single game... but that won't really affect the tactics I employ.

PenitentJake wrote:
1. Using words like "weird" to describe my preferences in a game, and saying "they don't make sense" are examples of antagonistic troll-speak; my preferences don't need to make sense to you, because they are MINE. I respect your preferences, and your right to play the game the way YOU want to, so some reciprocity would be appreciated.

I'm sorry for the choice of word there, I'm just baffled by the way you do things. You say you're 100% dedicated to your stories but then you routinely talk about limitations and obstacles that only exist in a matched play context where the story must be sacrificed to fit the constraints of a balanced pickup game against a random opponent at your local store/club. And you hype up Crusade despite all the places where it shamelessly sacrifices lore accuracy and narrative play for the sake of matched play needs. I just don't get it. I'd assumed you had no experience with narrative gaming outside of modern 40k and so even a feeble attempt at a narrative format like Crusade is better than nothing but IIRC that isn't true, you've played lots of games outside of modern 40k?

2. They limits aren't self imposed; they are the printed rules

"Use the printed rules" is a self-imposed limit in this context. In a matched play or tournament context it's an essential part of the game, whether you like it or not you play by the official rules because standardization is essential to having the system function. You can't have one game in a tournament use the standard rules while in the game next to them the players decide that the Towering nerf was overkill so they're going to ignore that part of the balance dataslate. But in an RPG (or a wargame played as an RPG) changing the rules is standard practice and it's taken for granted that every group is going to change stuff. The fact that something is in the printed rules is meaningless, any and all rules can be changed on a whim if someone feels an alternative would be better.

This is why I say you're using a matched play/tournament mindset. This isn't the first time you've brought up a case of the printed rules creating a constraint on your game but felt compelled to play by those printed rules. Remember the points vs. PL thread and your DE force where you had to go through a bunch of list revisions to make everything fit instead of just playing a 525 point army in a 500 point game? That's a textbook example of the matched play mindset, to the point that you'd rather use a point system with clear errors as long as it tells you that your 525 point army is really 500 points so you can play at the standard 500 point total the rules expect.

The basic principle behind the design is that in Crusade, generic characters represent relatively green units; leaders obviously have experience- a captain does have experience as a regular solder, as a sergeant, as lieutenant... But he's relatively new to his role as a Captain. By the time the unit hits Legendary, it is the EQUIVALENT of a named character.

So a named Imperial Guard sergeant is a legendary equivalent while a space marine chapter master with literal centuries of experience is a "relatively green unit" suitable for only basic rank until he fights a couple skirmishes? It's appropriate that only the sergeant can have artifact-level gear despite the clear fluff precedent that even the most junior chapter master has full access to the chapter's armory and routinely goes into battle with the best artifact equipment the Imperium can provide? The chapter master needs to demonstrate his value in a couple minor skirmishes before he can trade his generic power sword for the chapter's sacred relic, even though as a highly experienced captain he would have been entitled to have the relic sword?

and many of us are probably surprised that you can't see that it makes sense from both a fluff perspective and a mechanical perspective

It makes sense from a mechanical perspective in a matched play context where balance is essential and stacking up Crusade upgrades onto a unit that already has multiple special rules has a high chance of creating something overpowered. It doesn't make much sense from a mechanical perspective in a narrative context where a unit being overpowered is not an issue if that outcome fits the story. And it certainly doesn't make any sense from a fluff point of view since it presents the absurd suggestion that a highly experienced squad of grots (which has died so many times that none of the original members remain) is somehow higher ranked than a space marine chapter master with zero Crusade XP.

And, more importantly to my immediate point, it creates constraints on your story. You mentioned how the inability to advance in Crusade ranks forces the named characters to be transient participants in your story. Want them to have a bigger role? Too bad, the system doesn't want you to do that because it would be bad for matched play balance.

And to be clear, the traits that I ascribe to "the tournament mindset" are a) stand-alone pick-up games, and b) making decisions about army composition with at least some thought toward optimization in order to be competitive

c) Emphasis on standardization and what is "official". You may not be making decisions based on competitive optimization but you absolutely demonstrate the rigid adherence to the official rules and treat them as laws that must not be broken, not merely guidelines and suggestions as they are in a narrative game.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:
Because this isn't real life. Nor is it a game trying to simulate real life. So long as the game is fun enough? It doesn't matter what fantastical abilities GW ascribes to a Rhino that a real world M113 could never do.

Obviously, it is a 'secondary world,' but as such there are still certain expectations regarding consistency.

If a Rhino is described as a battle taxi, but best functions as a battering ram, that's a problem. If it then shifts to mobile cover, that's also an issue.

You realize that you're complaining about a state of affairs from 25 years ago. Minimum. Right? Unless you're one of those who still plays 2e - then it could've been yesterday.... But for most? It was over a generation ago. And it still worked just fine as a battle taxi to boot.
There's also the fact that just because it could be used as a ram, you didn't HAVE to use it that way.

As for it being a source of mobile cover? That's not an issue. It's an issue when it stops being cover for.... reasons (ex: here in 10e). Because alive or dead, it's still a 3d object on the table that can (or should) definitely be affecting LoS.

Owl,
Not really, that's actually adhering to the "going by the book" methodology.

Deviation from that is the variable.

Both in isolation and direct comparison.

You can both adhere to "book" whilst simultaneously going by "feel"

I would prefer NOT to require a conversation as to which "variation/interpretation" of the rules is valid for the current game. I dont(due to only playing 40k with like-minded players) have to in my chosen mode of play. Unfortunately, current 40k has made me less and less interested in playing "pickup" matches. Unfortunately, I've come to the realization that I'm most assuredly not the "current" target market for 10th(or 9th for that matter). Which is OK!

Luckily 30k does what i need it to WITHOUT the need for a lengthy discussion beforehand as to what type of game we are playing.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I would prefer NOT to require a conversation as to which "variation/interpretation" of the rules is valid for the current game.

That's a valid opinion but not really relevant to the person that post is about. PenitentJake exclusively plays games with a small group of people as part of Crusade campaigns, there is no pre-game conversation each time like there would be for games against random strangers at a store or club. Think of it less like matched play and more like your D&D group playing the same game for years at a time.

ccs wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:
Because this isn't real life. Nor is it a game trying to simulate real life. So long as the game is fun enough? It doesn't matter what fantastical abilities GW ascribes to a Rhino that a real world M113 could never do.

Obviously, it is a 'secondary world,' but as such there are still certain expectations regarding consistency.

If a Rhino is described as a battle taxi, but best functions as a battering ram, that's a problem. If it then shifts to mobile cover, that's also an issue.

You realize that you're complaining about a state of affairs from 25 years ago. Minimum. Right?

No I don't think so. The Rhino held significant value as a battering ram in 8th edition, when I would routinely use it to slam into Telemon and Leviathan dreadnoughts forcing them to not fire during the next turn.

And the specifics aren't really crucial to the point anyways. The overall point, I believe, is that you want the rules to support the expected behavior of a unit. Rhinos slamming into "heavy" dreadnoughts and stopping them from firing is an unexpected behavior. Anti-infantry weapons suddenly becoming comparatively more effective at shooting vehicles (something I found with my termagaunts vs. Custodes armies in 8th) is another example.

Churn (especially careless churn) often makes for unexpected behaviors.

A fictional universe doesn't need real world logic. But it needs in universe logic and coherency to be believable and immersive. I think that's what Toussaint actually said.

Of course if you're in for the competitive game and don't care it'll do nothing to you, but 40k is (was?) hopefully not just a tabletop game but an IP with the associated lore and universe. Rushing the rules may affect what the unit actually looks like as compared to the lore and its not always satisfactory.

GW churn is probably not just a problem of rules, but of minis and lore as the well to some extent. Which can be as frustrating.

leopard wrote:
the double turn thing is ok in AoS, would be more of a problem in 40k where ranged combat is a much larger part of the game.

to make it work would need an activation mechanic like Chain of Command where you are not using your whole army each turn anyway for the most part - and when your command dice do give you the double turn you will be activating even fewer units now and leaving it to the dice gods how many you activate the turn after

heck triple and more turns are possible there.

however I cannot see GW ever swapping how the turn activation goes away from IGOYGO, it becomes a totally different game then and just can't see it

Double turns still skews some armies, aka one that can, in to heavy magic or heavy range builds. My LL in prior edition were brutal example of that. Stuff like cruel boyz etc lives and breaths range combat. A pure melee army has to be hyper point efficient in order to be good in AoS. Which is also while those armies do not that well most of the time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:
Because this isn't real life. Nor is it a game trying to simulate real life. So long as the game is fun enough? It doesn't matter what fantastical abilities GW ascribes to a Rhino that a real world M113 could never do.

Obviously, it is a 'secondary world,' but as such there are still certain expectations regarding consistency.

If a Rhino is described as a battle taxi, but best functions as a battering ram, that's a problem. If it then shifts to mobile cover, that's also an issue.

You realize that you're complaining about a state of affairs from 25 years ago. Minimum. Right?

No I don't think so. The Rhino held significant value as a battering ram in 8th edition, when I would routinely use it to slam into Telemon and Leviathan dreadnoughts forcing them to not fire during the next turn...

IIRC there was some talk that a Rhino could instagib a Stormsurge via Tank Shock in 7e (depending on how one read the rules), so it's not like weird-rules-interactions-makes-Rhino-a-battering-ram is even specific to 8e.

I don’t even think a rhino driving full force into a dreadneught or similar to distract it for a few moments why other marines get into position and then getting out of the wreck after.

How long it should lasts is debatable, but as a potentially useful tactic it should be available.

But I just think it’s GW not really having any real idea what they even are working towards for a narrative of the game.

Apple fox wrote:
I don’t even think a rhino driving full force into a dreadneught or similar to distract it for a few moments why other marines get into position and then getting out of the wreck after.

How long it should lasts is debatable, but as a potentially useful tactic it should be available.

But I just think it’s GW not really having any real idea what they even are working towards for a narrative of the game.

I agree the Rhino one isn't too eggregious, although it still felt like a hack. ("Nice Telemon you got there, to bad you won't be using it next turn *Bonk*!") But the issue is when these odd cases suddenly become a units primary use case, which occasionally happens.

But really, worse yet, is when units suddenly can't perform their intended roles.

Here's a great example: Sorta halfway through 7th GW FAQd it so that units could only use a single grenade in CC with a vehicle, despite a long history of every model in base-to-base being able to do so. (The entire history of the game, I believe). All of a sudden units like Ork Tankbustas and and Eldar Fite Dragons, despite all being armed with melta bombs (or Ork equivalent, iirc), have a major portion of their entire purpose stripped from them.

Which was even dumber considering at what considerable disadvantage CC units where on the whole.