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.

 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.

Responding to Kodo's comment: Dude, you clearly never played a single game in the last 6 months of 7th. You wanna talk busted? Any one of the 7th edition deathstars would be literally unstoppable in 8th. You thought pre-nerf Ironhands were broken? Imagine if they had great melee, 12" movement, invisibility, and bumped their FNP up to 2+++. And that's not even counting the pre-faq period where you could get the FNP to literally 1++ and autopass because FNPs weren't technically covered under '1s always fail'.

At the end of 7th a unit of 5 blue horrors could have enough defensives to completely shrug off 2000pts worth of shooting and melee, not even counting their unlimited free splits. 99% damage reduction was given out like candy to the point where even 7th edition CWE, the single most broken codex ever released, just couldn't keep up with all the crazy multi-faction, multi-supplement deathstars out there. They even had to straight up ban several psychic powers because it would have completely obliterated the game.

If you don't like 8th, that's fine. Just don't pretend that 7th wasn't comparatively an absolutely unplayable dumpster fire at the end of it's lifespan.

..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?

... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?

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...

That is exciting, because honestly most transports in the game right now are pretty crap. The only ones that see any use either have some sort of gimmick to them or are just excellent gun platforms that happen to have transport capacity. When was the last time you saw a rhino in a competitive build of...anything? Even the Impulsor, which looks solid on paper, has been reserved for middle of the pack lists.

I just want to ask a question real quick, is the 'rules bloat' really that bad? I have 6 armies and between my gaming group each army is probably owned twice over and never have we had a problem with keeping track of books/rules. Are there areas where you literally have to have every book, FAQ, and errata or literally cant play? I print out some pages here and there but never has it been close to unwieldy or hard to manage for anyone I've met who's played 40k. I don't want to instigate, I'm just trying to see where you all are coming from.

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.

"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."

They explained that 1- games will be kept at a power level both can play, if you have more you can have it as roster kt style
2- the least experienced side gets extra command points
But ranting is easier i guess

Bdrone wrote:
..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?

... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?

No. Have you paid zero attention to their initial announcements?

"Crusade" is an optional way to play narratively driven games. We learned today that "Crusade" will feature in the main rulebook with the 'basics' of the systems while codices and campaign books going forward in the new edition will give more specific stuff. The mentions were relics, honors, and scars(which is the term they're using for injuries/lingering effects) specific to the warzones/factions. There will be unit rosters that you can keep track of stuff on, available digitally as downloads(they didn't say whether free or not but I can't imagine them selling it) or you can photocopy them from the books.

Bdrone wrote:
..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?

... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?

Give it two months post-launch and none will be using this. Those already running Campaigns will probably just stick to a Match Play with their own odd homerule tossed in for flavour the old fashioned way.

It's just a glorified virtual shopping list to 'encourage' you to buy the new Dreadnought to inter your Captain in and you should also buy a new Captain to replace the one who just died and make him more unique.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

You may have to take into account production with that. C:CSM may have actually been written 12-18 months prior and production scheduling of the actual models (fairly big release really) delayed the release of the rules, whereas C:SM may have been written 3-6 months prior. So you have 2 codex 5 months apart that may actually be close to 12-18 months apart in reality.

Good point. That could be the case. Although there are still outliers, such as the Iron Hands supplement compared to the other chapters. Given gw's lack of transparency I guess we'll never know how that happened. *shrug*

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

You may have to take into account production with that. C:CSM may have actually been written 12-18 months prior and production scheduling of the actual models (fairly big release really) delayed the release of the rules, whereas C:SM may have been written 3-6 months prior. So you have 2 codex 5 months apart that may actually be close to 12-18 months apart in reality.

Chaos Space Marines also was billed as a "second edition" that you really only needed if you didn't want to buy Vigilus Ablaze for the updated and new datasheets.

Don't believe me?
Here's what it says in bold at the bottom of the product description for the Chaos Space Marines Codex:

Codex: Chaos Space Marines product page wrote:Important Note

This is an updated version of Codex: Chaos Space Marines, containing new art, lore and updated rules encompassing new content from Imperium Nihilus: Vigilus Ablaze, including Prayers to the Dark Gods, updated units, and more. If you already own a copy of Chaos Space Marines and Vigilus Ablaze, you'll find this book a handy compilation. However, you do not need a copy of the original codex or Vigilus Ablaze to use this product!

Vigilus Ablaze also had this bit:

Vigilus Ablaze product page wrote: New and updated datasheets for 12 Daemon and Chaos Space Marine units (including Abaddon the Despoiler, as well as the Noctilith Crown and Skull Altar scenery pieces), 6 Prayers to the Dark Gods for use by models with the Priest keyword (and an additional Prayer for each of the four Chaos Powers), army abilities common to many of the Chaos units, as well as weapon profiles and points values

Why Chaos Space Marines was billed as a second edition/"updated version of the codex"? I don't know. Codex: Space Marines didn't have that. It's a strong contender that part of the reasoning why CSM's book was so wacky is that there's a bigger shift coming when a new edition of the codex drops--and I can't help but wonder if it's going to be taking the supplement route.

Anyways, here is an article on Crusade!

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.

"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."

So in other words, you know absolutely nothing about Crusade. Maybe you should actually listen to what they have to say before telling them they are wrong.

GW has a track record of creating that sort of thing with half assed efforts at thinking them through, then forgetting about said thing. Only newcomers could feel excited. All other players know the drill. No one at GW will even remember what "crusade" is 5 months from now.
Index times where when they should have launched this. Back then rules were so simple you could have added campaign rules easy. Now... Too late boy, too God D late

Who on earth wants to deal with extra rules ? PA rules, Vigilus rules, 8th or 9th rules ? I mean at some point you'd have to be a masochist to think "Hmmm, I want to add some more rules and bookeeping, that is not enough".

Of course the first 500 point games (25 PL is that right ?) will be done quickly. 50 PL games too. But then... Maaaaaan

What works for AoS doesn't necessarily work for 40k, AOS is not as complex (probably a good thing too). we could have had more GW brainpower put into 9th, instead of dedicating brainpower to a "dead soon after arrival" concept

Is like the whinning version of theoryhammer?

Path to Glory says "sup".

Because it's literally in the army books for Age of Sigmar...which is what they're talking about with regards to "Crusade".

Eh, Crusade doesn't seem too bad. How do you know if your Crusading Opponent earned his points though?

I understand there's documentation to show that points have been spent, but how do you know if he's fairly earned those points to begin with?

I appreciate the attempt at trying to get campaign mechanics to work with Pick Up games, but I'm uncertain on the details of it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eh, Crusade doesn't seem too bad. How do you know if your Crusading Opponent earned his points though?

I understand there's documentation to show that points have been spent, but how do you know if he's fairly earned those points to begin with?

I appreciate the attempt at trying to get campaign mechanics to work with Pick Up games, but I'm uncertain on the details of it.

If the advantages you get against his points are balanced it shouldn’t matter, he’d be cheating himself mostly. If not, well it’s up to you if you want to fight an army with those bonusses in the end

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eh, Crusade doesn't seem too bad. How do you know if your Crusading Opponent earned his points though?

I understand there's documentation to show that points have been spent, but how do you know if he's fairly earned those points to begin with?

I appreciate the attempt at trying to get campaign mechanics to work with Pick Up games, but I'm uncertain on the details of it.

Because it doesn't matter (in theory).

If your opponent (claims to have) spent a million crusade points on stuff, you get the equivalent underdog balance in CP, etc.. .

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eh, Crusade doesn't seem too bad. How do you know if your Crusading Opponent earned his points though?

I understand there's documentation to show that points have been spent, but how do you know if he's fairly earned those points to begin with?

I appreciate the attempt at trying to get campaign mechanics to work with Pick Up games, but I'm uncertain on the details of it.

I highly doubt you'll see people agreeing to play Crusade games with people in pugs unless they're already familiar with the person or also a Crusader. The way their own example is parsed is very much a "Hey, I know you're playing a tourney practice game, do you mind if we play Crusade, too?" kind of scenario.

Just absolutely strangers, random pick-ups of Crusade vs. tournament-practice is probably unlikely.

But my GW store has been running lots of fun campaigns for years and I am pretty sure there'll be a 40+ people Crusade campaign up and going going as soon as this is out (and Corona is over).

Yea, I’ve been running ongoing campaigns with narrative overlay at our FLGS and I’m amped to see how we can use this!

Huh.

Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.

Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'

They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.

Voss wrote:
Huh.

Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.

Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'

They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.

Not sure if it is explained in the article but the increase in army size only works for your roster army a la kill team, for the actual game it will be same power level.
They said it in the twitch interview

Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.

If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.

It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.

Ice_can wrote:
Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.

If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.

It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.

You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?

Kaneda88 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh.

Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.

Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'

They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.

Not sure if it is explained in the article but the increase in army size only works for your roster army a la kill team, for the actual game it will be same power level.
They said it in the twitch interview

Oh, so you're buying a sideboard so you can min/max depending on who you're fighting.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.

If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.

It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.

You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?

I think it's more that it lends credence to the idea that GW is still desperately trying to design the game around a bunch of guys in the studio throwing their whacky or fluff armies across the table with beer and pretzels, rather than getting on board with the idea that even at a casual level, the vast majority of people would take a relatively well balanced ruleset with an eye to win rather than narrative/lolsorandom.

Voss wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh.

Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.

Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'

They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.

Not sure if it is explained in the article but the increase in army size only works for your roster army a la kill team, for the actual game it will be same power level.
They said it in the twitch interview

Oh, so you're buying a sideboard so you can min/max depending on who you're fighting.

Which is different from bringing extra models and writing your Matched Play list at the store how?

I think you have the framing backwards. Tournament Guy in this situation doesn't have a fellow tournament guy to pair off with, and asks for a game with crusade folks.

This isn't forcing interactions this is giving opponentless Tournament Guy a way to have not wasted a trip to the FLGS.

ERJAK wrote:

Responding to Kodo's comment: Dude, you clearly never played a single game in the last 6 months of 7th. You wanna talk busted?

you know, the point is that at the end of 7th it was no big deal to get the best 40k ever out, as after the mess that was, Index Armies and Streamlined Core rules was such a huge improvement that everyone forgot how well 7th started after the mess 6th edition was

and as far as I remember, 6th was the only Edition were people felt it was a step back or downgrade from the prevous one and not a step forward

now 8th is not as worse as 7th was, but powercreep and bloat is there, and just by cleaning that things up 9th will be felt as a step forward. (It is nothing that a proper Errata won't do as well, but GW won't never make big changes with a free document)

question is how long it will last and what will happen if the first Codex written for 9th is released

so if 9th will be better than 8th or worse in the end, we won't know at the very beginning as the problems were never the core rules but powercreep and bloat that was added after