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.

 Fayric wrote:

 addnid wrote:

 kodos wrote:
really?

Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.

So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)

Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)

Hard to beat the glorious days of index book rules beginning of 8th. Easy and balanced for everyone. Now 9th is of to a very bad start considering the double bloat of myriad bonus rules and a handfull of rulebooks/sources for each army.

I hope thats a joke, those indexes were aweful.

 Arbitrator wrote:
New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.

I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.

People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.

Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.

I sense lots of optimism or this 9th ed, and rule bloat will diminish with every knoew codex so... And the "marine problem" will persist only for early 9th IMO. And who knows, harlequins, ad mech or necrons might actually become more problematic than marines, who knows really.

Wargamers cut GW se much slack because 40k is the only game that is "still there" after a few years. Ant other game will see its community dissapear after a few years. 40k groups do not. So GW must be doing at least something right, I think. I thought about selling all my armies during 6th ed and 7th, but at the end of the day what other wargame was I going to play ? Not enough people to play with, no matter what other wargame (warmachine was big at the time, but I knew it wouldn't last, and it didn't, not where i played...)

 Arbitrator wrote:
New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.

I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.

People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.

Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.

When Eldar or Necrons or Knights or Tau become OP, a typical (in my experience anyway) 40k playgroup ends up with 1-2 players who may have broken armies.

When marines become OP, a typical 40k playgroup ends up with 7-8 players who may have broken armies. When roughly half the players in the group play marines, and everybody else vanishes, then after a while the marine players who dislike playing other marines all the time, also grow disinterested.

One of the universal constants of 40k is people who want to play as the marines, and want to only play against the not-marines, so that their army can feel elite and have cool special rules in comparison to the other army. When non-marine armies are broken, marine players can still have a good time by avoiding the one person who plays that army in particular and complain about them, but when m arines are broken, marine players who don't enjoy imperium vs imperium end up with no opponents right quick and get bored.

So, hopefully 9th ed provides some kind of balancing factor that reduces or mitigates the current situation of "marines have tons of unique extra bonus stuff that nobody else gets to have" and GW does not choose to drip-feed out the monofaction bonuses through a new, tiring round of codex re-buying that everyone has to do. I'm not filled with a whole lot of confidence on that front. I really do hope that they lean into this "Crusade Mode is going to be the big selling point of the new 'dexes" angle, though, because enthusiasm level for that mode among my group is basically zero.

One of the best things about quarantine is that we had what feels like a seconds-long pause in the endless Rules Churn that allowed people to breathe for a second, and the first thing a lot of them did was kick off a new army project. If we go back to having to spend money every month on books, this new interest in branching out to new factions might die off. As it stands though, we have a player starting eldar, a player starting orks, two players starting drukhari, a player starting sisters, and a player starting chaos marines with chaos knights which I'm really excited about.

 Imateria wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

 addnid wrote:

 kodos wrote:
really?

Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.

So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)

Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)

Hard to beat the glorious days of index book rules beginning of 8th. Easy and balanced for everyone. Now 9th is of to a very bad start considering the double bloat of myriad bonus rules and a handfull of rulebooks/sources for each army.

I hope thats a joke, those indexes were aweful.

Why? Because they were more balanced than codexes? Because there wasn't free rules with chapter/regiment/etc to shoehorn you into set units and discouraging fluffy armies?

 addnid wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.

I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.

People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.

Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.

I sense lots of optimism or this 9th ed, and rule bloat will diminish with every knoew codex so... And the "marine problem" will persist only for early 9th IMO. And who knows, harlequins, ad mech or necrons might actually become more problematic than marines, who knows really.

Wargamers cut GW se much slack because 40k is the only game that is "still there" after a few years. Ant other game will see its community dissapear after a few years. 40k groups do not. So GW must be doing at least something right, I think. I thought about selling all my armies during 6th ed and 7th, but at the end of the day what other wargame was I going to play ? Not enough people to play with, no matter what other wargame (warmachine was big at the time, but I knew it wouldn't last, and it didn't, not where i played...)

I don't see why rule bloat would diminish. It might do for SOME armies temporarily since they mentioned any new codex will bake in the PA rules, but there's nothing to suggest that won't be anymore than a compilation. If PA books are still valid and the new 'dex doesn't include things like Tank Aces or certain Strategems, because those books are - by their own words - still legal then at best, the amount of rules remains exactly the same for that army (under one volume) and at worst you're still carting the Codex + PA + Vigilus with you. What's more is they've already confirmed that more campaigns like PA are coming with 9th and since everybody knows rules are what shift books and not lore (that being Black Library's purview) chances are it's going to get worse before it gets better.

You answered your own question. Wargaming is very expensive and almost everybody starts with 40k (or at least a GW product) due to it's market saturation, hell, a lot of people don't actually know other wargames exist. Wargamers like big communities, sothey're nervous of investing into other games, but 40k will always be there. So when GW pulls the curtain on their new Malibu Stacy (with a hat) everybody rushes back to it for no other major reason beyond... well, everybody else is going it. That has the effect of temporarily killing off most other games regardless of how good the quality of their rules or sculpts may be. GW is probably consciously aware of that since they uncharacteristically pulled the veil off The Old World literal years in advance of seeing much, coincidentally around the same time Kings of War 3E was launching and ASOI&F was picking up steam. Even those Kings of War is widely accepted to be a far better ruleset than anything GW was/is(?) producing, all the hype is surrounding Warhammer because... well, people know about it and they know people will play it largely because it's Games Workshop/Warhammer and has the highest chance of garnering bigger playerbase for that reason.

Also, not every game's community disappears so much as they wax and wane. Even Warmahordes still has a decent sized playerbase comparable to what it was prior to the big surge around when GW was actively trying to blow it's own feet off.

 addnid wrote:
Wargamers cut GW se much slack because 40k is the only game that is "still there" after a few years. Ant other game will see its community dissapear after a few years. 40k groups do not. So GW must be doing at least something right, I think. I thought about selling all my armies during 6th ed and 7th, but at the end of the day what other wargame was I going to play ? Not enough people to play with, no matter what other wargame (warmachine was big at the time, but I knew it wouldn't last, and it didn't, not where i played...)

Well, I don't know... I play Battletech. I haven't had much of a problem finding games in thirty years

tneva82 wrote:
Why? Because they were more balanced than codexes? Because there wasn't free rules with chapter/regiment/etc to shoehorn you into set units and discouraging fluffy armies?

Because orks were so little fun to play, I started another army.

Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.

Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.

I concur. I wish they’d communicate more between the writers and kept things more consistent across the board.

Darsath wrote:
Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.

The problem is, it is far more profitable for GW to drip-feed advantages and fixes for disadvantages in the codexes as a selling point than it is to create new rules uniformly and give everyone a piece at once.

Imbalance makes much, much more money than balance. Get your codex now and you can have the good strong flavorful rules!

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.

During 8th edition Reece (founder of Fronline Gaming and the ITC) made a fair few bold predictions and was very wrong, even in spite of being a play-tester, claiming stompas would be great, white scars would be the best marine chapter etc. and they're still doing better than fine.

Exactly. Personally, I refuse to have anything to do with the douchebags at frontline because of everything that happened involving them in 8th. I'm the minority in that sentiment though. It doesn't seem like their business was affected at all.

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Why? Because they were more balanced than codexes? Because there wasn't free rules with chapter/regiment/etc to shoehorn you into set units and discouraging fluffy armies?

Because orks were so little fun to play, I started another army.

this is not an index problem

 Galas wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?

They are like those asking to go back to RT when 3rd released. In 2-3 editions they will fade in obscurity as they become the new old-hammers.

I'd not want the game to go back to 7th, but I wouldn't mind them taking lessons from KT, apoc, and LotR to make their flagship game better. There are things introduced in apoc that really would benefit 40k, AA is one, casualties at the end is another, consolidating dice is a third (look, no one enjoys sitting there watching someone roll 200 dice).

They could also take hints from killteam and lotr to commit to alternating phases. One side moves (and charges), the other side does, alternate shooting, and then the standard modern alternate combat. Heck I have played a couple games cribbing killteam's set up and it works.

 kodos wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 keas66 wrote:
Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .

It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.

The box can be thick but I doubt there is much difference in plastic between all the options just some weapons there or not there between a couple of the variants. The cost of it is intense, we're not paying for " Thick box feels " It's just the ever bloating costs for moar profits while I am sure even at say, 80 which is still high, they'd have pretty good profit. Or, they could just sit back and pull in some of those extra profits from the extra expensive Cavalry units. Might as well claim it costs so much because once you buy it all your dreams will come true. Especially if your dream was to pay a mint for the Davinci Code.

Oh good, you understand how their business works. Could you explain to me what the cost breakdown vs profit of this model is in GW terms?

GW explained it some time ago, the sales on the release weekend need to cover all the previous costs of the model (design, molds, casting, box art etc) otherwise it is considered "failed".
together with the expected sales on release they calculate the price of the box, so stuff GW expects to sell more on release are cheaper than those were they expect less

regarding kits like the flyer, it is a lot cheaper for GW to make one kit with an additional sprue for bits than to make 3 different kits, while they can still price it as 3 models

This is a very concerning approach to profit that focuses on front-loading and then abandoning products to show a quick injection of cash to shareholders. Too many companies focus on two days immediately after release and drop all marketing and support for a product afterwards, helping fulfill the belief that only the first few days matter.

the_scotsman wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.

The problem is, it is far more profitable for GW to drip-feed advantages and fixes for disadvantages in the codexes as a selling point than it is to create new rules uniformly and give everyone a piece at once.

Imbalance makes much, much more money than balance. Get your codex now and you can have the good strong flavorful rules!

It's also what most people want, to have their army be the unbalanced OP one. There's a rush winning games. Even if, ultimately, that rush wears off and you start to feel embarrassed at the dirty looks you're getting when you set up you iron hands. It's especially strong if your army used to be gak and suddenly it is the new hotness and it feels good beating the pants off the last old hotness after that army steam rolled you the last 20 times you played it.

Well there might exist a middle ground between the bland, stripped to the core indexes, on one hand, or on the other hand, the bloat we already have seen of codices, + supplement N#1 + supplement N#2 etc...
The perilous rules bloat we got through in 7th edition has already returned. It is just less obviously OTT.
I really wish we could have a gaming environment where we had to just grab our codices, annual readjustments (Chapter Approved) and go away with no more than that.

Even though I like the TT guys a lot, we don't know how much they were given to playtest and the boundaries they have to follow while doing so. And even then, will the feedback be heeded, not sure?
I am really looking forward to 9th as I've enjoyed 8th considerably, and feel that it does need a few tweaks. I don't generally play horde type armies, so CPs have always been an issue which I'm glad to see changing.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Well there might exist a middle ground between the bland, stripped to the core indexes, on one hand, or on the other hand, the bloat we already have seen of codices, + supplement N#1 + supplement N#2 etc...
The perilous rules bloat we got through in 7th edition has already returned. It is just less obviously OTT.
I really wish we could have a gaming environment where we had to just grab our codices, annual readjustments (Chapter Approved) and go away with no more than that.

You are a Paris suburb idealist

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.

You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?

It's good we left the index phase behind. I felt the vast balance problems were solved with the first codizes and their FaQs, also playing with indizes felt like playing a Demo-version of the game. It was okay for some first test games, but for a longer involvement the faction-specific rules were too simple (or... non existant).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.

You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?

But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.

Today's 40,000 daily is Crusade.

the_scotsman wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.

The problem is, it is far more profitable for GW to drip-feed advantages and fixes for disadvantages in the codexes as a selling point than it is to create new rules uniformly and give everyone a piece at once.

Imbalance makes much, much more money than balance. Get your codex now and you can have the good strong flavorful rules!

Exactly. Literally every faction complained back then that they had the worst index army. They can't all be the worst. The real culprit was the fact that 1 month in they dropped Chaos, DG, and Marines which made those armies with a codex incredibly powerful by comparison because they had all the stuff that slows the game down and cheats the rules. Strats, WLT, free Relics and Extended psychic power lists.

While I'll agree certain armies in the index were better off then others, that was an incredibly easy fix had GW bothered doing the right thing and making the indexes a living downloadable document online. Instead they waited for yearly chapter approved updates lol.

I honestly hope Chapter Approved no longer juggles points and is just missions and campaign fodder. The AP announcement has me hopeful.

Regarding 8th and it's hickups, sure codex creep reared it's ugly head but honestly I think that's unavoidable at the current release pace. And despite folks complaints, I still hear folks getting irate about waiting their turn. Overall 8th was very fun and playable, although again, real time online patches would have minimized the power swings. It's the last year that really got out of hand with marines, and because it was the last thing really, that is what everyone tends to focus on. But with the lock downs and the announcement of another marine book not even a year later, at least the silver lining is they might tone that problem down while everyone waits to get back into playing.

The video of the playtesters was mostly just their impressions, but one of them referred to the improvement to vehicles. He said vehicles and not tanks. This indicates that the hints given in the first reveal regarding firing out of melee etc will likely apply to all Vehicles and they are not making a new Keyword for Tanks.

Of course, I could be totally wrong! I've been wrong before...

Campaign books and codices will feature new Crusade stuff. There will be relics, battle honors/battle scars, etc for specific campaigns.

"Think WarCry meets Necromunda" was used as a comparison.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Today's 40,000 daily is Crusade.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuugh, fine I"ll wait for tomorrow.

Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.

"We'll make a campaign system whereby the winners get stronger and the losers get weaker!"

*That One Guy everyone hates who is a huge power gamer is able to leverage these advantages and quickly becomes unstoppable*

*The guy everyone loves to play because he plays weak fluffy armies quickly can't play anymore because of the crushing disadvantages*

*Everyone quits except that one guy everybody hates*

"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."

Crusade is definitely sounding interesting to my ears.

If nothing else, starting at a low CP means I can get games in whilst building and painting, rather than having to match my club’s preferred level, which is in turn informed by tournament standard point levels.

Amusingly, they just talked about some of those. I'm not transcribing stuff as it happens but the mention about the "winners get stronger and losers get weaker"? That got addressed in a way I'm a fan of.

Hmm.. Crusade lists can play Matched play lists.

The person with the Matched play converts their list to PL, but gets extra CP to make up for the bonuses a Crusade list gets.

And Crusade missions have XP rewards for completing objectives it seems.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Today's 40,000 daily is Crusade.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuugh, fine I"ll wait for tomorrow.

Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.
"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."

Yep, but it is kind of "baby seal cute" that they actually went through the hoops to deliver such an unwanted product. I played capaigns a lot around 5th ed, when the game was real fast to play, so campaign book keeping was lessa problem. They nearly all died before being finished anyway, because humans have "real live problems" hah hah. And people weren't even as flaky as they are today...
I wonder who at GW thought: "ok, people have enough time in their lives for this, no question."
Whereas really, people are happy if they can get a"simple" pick up game once a week. Maaaaaan

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.

You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?

But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.

Team. Singular, not teams. There is one 40k rules team and they work as a group. There is one AoS team and they work as a group. The only splitting off these teams do is someone is likely responsible for doing all the typing of each book, but they work together to come up with rules and the like.

What the 40k team is to adopt AoS's terminology bible approach so they have premade templates to write rules off of that keep the language clear and consistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The video of the playtesters was mostly just their impressions, but one of them referred to the improvement to vehicles. He said vehicles and not tanks. This indicates that the hints given in the first reveal regarding firing out of melee etc will likely apply to all Vehicles and they are not making a new Keyword for Tanks.

Of course, I could be totally wrong! I've been wrong before...

I'd rather love to see an Ironclad open up with a Hurrican Bolter befor mashing someone's face in in melee to be honest.

And Crusader Land Raiders getting to open up their Hurrican Bolters into melee? Tasty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Today's 40,000 daily is Crusade.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuugh, fine I"ll wait for tomorrow.

Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.
"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."

Yep, but it is kind of "baby seal cute" that they actually went through the hoops to deliver such an unwanted product. I played capaigns a lot around 5th ed, when the game was real fast to play, so campaign book keeping was lessa problem. They nearly all died before being finished anyway, because humans have "real live problems" hah hah. And people weren't even as flaky as they are today...
I wonder who at GW thought: "ok, people have enough time in their lives for this, no question."
Whereas really, people are happy if they can get a"simple" pick up game once a week. Maaaaaan

Honestly the fact you can even run it solo so you can keep telling a story about your army just means that it's more likely to get used, even if its not tied to big narrative events.