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 price for Szarekh looks positively sensible next to the Chaplain!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The price for Szarekh looks positively sensible next to the Chaplain!

I'm not surprised by the Chaplain - the GSC Jackal Alphus is £25 and she's normal human-sized on a dirt bike.

When should we expect to see reviews of the codices?

 Crimson wrote:
When should we expect to see reviews of the codices?

Saturday, most likely.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure why GW insist on calling Crusade "narrative" play...

I'm not sure why you posted this because it's borderline baiting...

It's fine for people to have differing desires or opinions on a product but this video is completely out of touch and the arguments utterly nonsensical.

Additional rules that allow for army progression through a campaign = "You have to learn more rules on top of 9e and your army, so this only applies to people who like spreadsheets"

Yes, that is how supplements work. Is that even an argument?

It's like buying something from IKEA, taking it home, and opening it up just to complain that it only is appealing to handymen because you need to assemble it. Which is also completely ignoring that GW has already told everyone what sort of content the book had so there really shouldn't be any surprise...

Character and unit customization options = "GW is trying to ride the coat-tails of DnD because Critical Role and Stranger Things are popular"

I honestly don't even think this line of thought deserves a response. Seriously? It's not like GW has a history of releasing RPG-lite/RPG-adjacent supplements and products or anything...

"Narrative players really want story and narrative. I think we really want to play the Fall of Cadia or a setting for the 1st Tyranic War with some new hero characters, some new moments, and some new setting."

WHO wants that? I don't think I've ever seen anyone ask for either of those things, not the least because they already exist in some part. Gathering Storm covered the Fall of Cadia two editions ago and iirc the 1st Tyranic war dates back to either 3rd or 4th edition.

Also how many people actually replayed the "historical battles" from older 40k and AoS supplements? Like a handful of the overall player base?

And yeah, of course everyone wants more new named characters with their own individual rules. It's not like named characters are some of the most divisive units in the entire game that constantly get abused because they were previously the only way to get rules outside of the generic HQ options.

Also no one has ever asked for additional character customization like what Crusade is supposed to be providing... /s

"Narrative players want actual stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. This book only has 3 pages of setting, the rest is all rules. GW thinks narrative people want as little narrative as possible."

I... Has anyone ever... WHO! Again, who is begging for pre-written narratives with set story beats? 40k is the game of Your Dudes! And honestly, we all know that the Indomitus Crusade has a beginning, middle, and end.

[Beginning] Silent King shows up and Pariah Nexus appears.
[Middle] Imperium is mad about this. They send a lot of (insert Imperial faction here) to go fight the Necrons.
[End] Mid-way through 9e GW will declare the Indomitus Crusade over, someone will "win", but no faction will be significantly benefited or hampered on a macro scale.

Is there a place for 40k "historical" reenactment? Sure! Does is have to be in or replace the book that is designed to supposedly allow players to make their own narratives with their own dudes? NO!

"The book doesn't tell you how the Pariah Nexus effects Eldar, Tyranid Shadow in the Warp, Demons."

See these are really good questions that an actual useful review would point out. So I guess +1 point to winters SEO for...

"What about Cadia? How does the Pariah Nexus interact with Cadia? Did the writers forget that Cadia also had a warp dampening effect? What's the connection?"

FFS, what is his obsession with Cadia? They aren't even in the same Segmentum! Also we already know the connection and have basically know for 2 editions now!

Necrons! That's it. Necron pylons. They even did the Kooky Adventures of Trazyn and Cawl in Gathering Storm just in case anyone was still in doubt Crons had anything to do with Cadia.

"Are there any new heroes or villans..?"

MAKE YOUR OWN USING THE RULES IN THE BOOK! THAT'S WHAT IT EXISTS FOR!

"I guess they just want you to make your own. Which is fine but narrative players have been doing that since the dawn of time..."

NO! There is no "but". That's what this book is for. That's what this book was described as. That's what Crusade since it was announced has been described as.

It's a set of rules to aid you in playing homebrew narrative because good luck getting even close friends to agree on any sort of custom rules unless everyone has a lot of patience, is willing to accept and respect each others' criticism, and you have a very robust method of resolving differences in opinion. Or you nominate a single person as 40k Narrative DM. Otherwise it's almost impossible to get anyone to accept homebrew rules, especially after the first time someone makes something they think is reasonable but everyone else thinks is broken.

That's the function of Crusade. In theory the rules should have more design insight behind them than an average player can muster, and even in the even something is badly tuned then no one gets their feelings hurt because you can all just blame GW and house rule from there.

The Imperial Fists dice look nice. I certainly don't like the price and I'm not going to go out of my way to get them in the inevitable event that they are stupidly limited in quantity, but if my favorite online store happens to have them in stock long enough to actually order...

The Necron dice aren't bad either, and seem to be quite readable.

 Jack Flask wrote:

Spoiler:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure why GW insist on calling Crusade "narrative" play...

I'm not sure why you posted this because it's borderline baiting...

It's fine for people to have differing desires or opinions on a product but this video is completely out of touch and the arguments utterly nonsensical.

Additional rules that allow for army progression through a campaign = "You have to learn more rules on top of 9e and your army, so this only applies to people who like spreadsheets"

Yes, that is how supplements work. Is that even an argument?

It's like buying something from IKEA, taking it home, and opening it up just to complain that it only is appealing to handymen because you need to assemble it. Which is also completely ignoring that GW has already told everyone what sort of content the book had so there really shouldn't be any surprise...

Character and unit customization options = "GW is trying to ride the coat-tails of DnD because Critical Role and Stranger Things are popular"

I honestly don't even think this line of thought deserves a response. Seriously? It's not like GW has a history of releasing RPG-lite/RPG-adjacent supplements and products or anything...

"Narrative players really want story and narrative. I think we really want to play the Fall of Cadia or a setting for the 1st Tyranic War with some new hero characters, some new moments, and some new setting."

WHO wants that? I don't think I've ever seen anyone ask for either of those things, not the least because they already exist in some part. Gathering Storm covered the Fall of Cadia two editions ago and iirc the 1st Tyranic war dates back to either 3rd or 4th edition.

Also how many people actually replayed the "historical battles" from older 40k and AoS supplements? Like a handful of the overall player base?

And yeah, of course everyone wants more new named characters with their own individual rules. It's not like named characters are some of the most divisive units in the entire game that constantly get abused because they were previously the only way to get rules outside of the generic HQ options.

Also no one has ever asked for additional character customization like what Crusade is supposed to be providing... /s

"Narrative players want actual stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. This book only has 3 pages of setting, the rest is all rules. GW thinks narrative people want as little narrative as possible."

I... Has anyone ever... WHO! Again, who is begging for pre-written narratives with set story beats? 40k is the game of Your Dudes! And honestly, we all know that the Indomitus Crusade has a beginning, middle, and end.

[Beginning] Silent King shows up and Pariah Nexus appears.
[Middle] Imperium is mad about this. They send a lot of (insert Imperial faction here) to go fight the Necrons.
[End] Mid-way through 9e GW will declare the Indomitus Crusade over, someone will "win", but no faction will be significantly benefited or hampered on a macro scale.

Is there a place for 40k "historical" reenactment? Sure! Does is have to be in or replace the book that is designed to supposedly allow players to make their own narratives with their own dudes? NO!

"The book doesn't tell you how the Pariah Nexus effects Eldar, Tyranid Shadow in the Warp, Demons."

See these are really good questions that an actual useful review would point out. So I guess +1 point to winters SEO for...

"What about Cadia? How does the Pariah Nexus interact with Cadia? Did the writers forget that Cadia also had a warp dampening effect? What's the connection?"

FFS, what is his obsession with Cadia? They aren't even in the same Segmentum! Also we already know the connection and have basically know for 2 editions now!

Necrons! That's it. Necron pylons. They even did the Kooky Adventures of Trazyn and Cawl in Gathering Storm just in case anyone was still in doubt Crons had anything to do with Cadia.

"Are there any new heroes or villans..?"

MAKE YOUR OWN USING THE RULES IN THE BOOK! THAT'S WHAT IT EXISTS FOR!

"I guess they just want you to make your own. Which is fine but narrative players have been doing that since the dawn of time..."

NO! There is no "but". That's what this book is for. That's what this book was described as. That's what Crusade since it was announced has been described as.

It's a set of rules to aid you in playing homebrew narrative because good luck getting even close friends to agree on any sort of custom rules unless everyone has a lot of patience, is willing to accept and respect each others' criticism, and you have a very robust method of resolving differences in opinion. Or you nominate a single person as 40k Narrative DM. Otherwise it's almost impossible to get anyone to accept homebrew rules, especially after the first time someone makes something they think is reasonable but everyone else thinks is broken.

That's the function of Crusade. In theory the rules should have more design insight behind them than an average player can muster, and even in the even something is badly tuned then no one gets their feelings hurt because you can all just blame GW and house rule from there.

Winters missed the point of the core crusade rules as well and his negative rant was actually a surprisingly good sales pitch for it. Ironically the number of expansions over the last 3 editions or so that contained reenactment battles for narrative play etc that were deemed a waste of pages, or of no interest because it wasn't matched play + extras is telling.

I sort of get some of Winters's issues with Crusade from a narrative players point of view. The rules are set up in such a way that they almost encourage people to min-max them, which is kind of a problem whenever you introduce "official" rules into any narrative setting.

However, I do think GW are in a bit of a tricky spot with narrative play in general. They were criticised in previous editions for paying it lip service, despite it being one of the 3 ways to play but now they're criticised for providing more substance too. Reduced to its absolute, most ridiculous minimum you can always claim you don't need *any* rules for narrative since that's the whole point, but I do kind of wonder what Winters expects. GW tried the wishy-washy historical story approach to things and people complained. Now they have a more structured set of rules and people complain. I think a good narrative player should be able to take the framework Crusade provides and build a really good narrative campaign with it.

I guess we'll see how hard GW push Crusade with the new Codices and expansions.

Slipspace wrote:
I sort of get some of Winters's issues with Crusade from a narrative players point of view. The rules are set up in such a way that they almost encourage people to min-max them, which is kind of a problem whenever you introduce "official" rules into any narrative setting.

However, I do think GW are in a bit of a tricky spot with narrative play in general. They were criticised in previous editions for paying it lip service, despite it being one of the 3 ways to play but now they're criticised for providing more substance too. Reduced to its absolute, most ridiculous minimum you can always claim you don't need *any* rules for narrative since that's the whole point, but I do kind of wonder what Winters expects. GW tried the wishy-washy historical story approach to things and people complained. Now they have a more structured set of rules and people complain. I think a good narrative player should be able to take the framework Crusade provides and build a really good narrative campaign with it.

I guess we'll see how hard GW push Crusade with the new Codices and expansions.

I think the issue is peoples definition of "narrative" to some people it is replaying historical battles etc. although they're obviously locked into certain battlefields and factions etc. Crusade is still a narrative format but is more of an RPG, then you have the "I have a really cool idea lets make something special for it" crowd who like to make their own rules up. There is no right or wrong and it's not possible to cater to all 3, especially when the more vocal aspect of the community are centred around matched play.

I agree that it's not obvious what Winters wanted given they've done all of the above at some point in the past and almost uniformly nobody bothered with them and complained about ether not being enough content or taking up space that could be given to matched play. Obviously to each their own but piling salt on to say it's not what narrative players want as a whole is unfair.

I sort of understood some of his criticism to be based in the fact that in a universe spanning tens of thousands of years with many huge events and timey-winey stuff, they've narrowed the field of play considerably. I personally understand why they have done that here and don't personally have any qualms with it, to promote the new setting and models, but I can appreciate that with so much history for a majority of the player base who grew up on the back of the 13th crusade, tyrannic wars and Armageddon etc, that it might have been nice to back fill for those things first before diving straight in to something new as many of the characters we'd be likely to start with may have actually participated in those conflicts as newbies.

IE. Maybe I would like a Grey Knight strike squad member that fought in the first war for Armageddon who then got lost in the warp until the first tyrannic war (or vice-versa) where they earned their terminator honours, leading us into the Indomitus so has experience from three major theatres of war before modern day.

The effect of picking one very tiny part of the history to make such a fanfare about does limit and expand narrative play. It expands the rules but drags the setting toa very small point when the idea of narrative play was to explore the fluff and, inescapably so, the fluff includes and has been defined by these historic conflicts. I think had they come back with a historic book to cover the most recent conflicts it would have been less well received but then those conflicts should have been picked up in the rule book or highlighted as coming in related codexes to silence nay sayers.

And i've always wanted named, personal customised heroes. I don't know anyone that hasn't wanted that tbf. Own character design rules, RPG style, have been the top of most players lists i've ever known as we all want to escape using GW named characters to bring in our own for narrative reasons. Abaddon and Marneus can't be on every sodding planet...

It's a specific battlezone. We know there are more coming.

It's a goofy thing to get salty about.

Semper wrote:
I sort of understood some of his criticism to be based in the fact that in a universe spanning tens of thousands of years with many huge events and timey-winey stuff, they've narrowed the field of play considerably. I personally understand why they have done that here and don't personally have any qualms with it, to promote the new setting and models, but I can appreciate that with so much history for a majority of the player base who grew up on the back of the 13th crusade, tyrannic wars and Armageddon etc, that it might have been nice to back fill for those things first before diving straight in to something new as many of the characters we'd be likely to start with may have actually participated in those conflicts as newbies.

IE. Maybe I would like a Grey Knight strike squad member that fought in the first war for Armageddon who then got lost in the warp until the first tyrannic war (or vice-versa) where they earned their terminator honours, leading us into the Indomitus so has experience from three major theatres of war before modern day.

The effect of picking one very tiny part of the history to make such a fanfare about does limit and expand narrative play. It expands the rules but drags the setting toa very small point when the idea of narrative play was to explore the fluff and, inescapably so, the fluff includes and has been defined by these historic conflicts. I think had they come back with a historic book to cover the most recent conflicts it would have been less well received but then those conflicts should have been picked up in the rule book or highlighted as coming in related codexes to silence nay sayers.

And i've always wanted named, personal customised heroes. I don't know anyone that hasn't wanted that tbf. Own character design rules, RPG style, have been the top of most players lists i've ever known as we all want to escape using GW named characters to bring in our own for narrative reasons. Abaddon and Marneus can't be on every sodding planet...

If you ran a crusade with grey knights and played against buddies with wolves and various khorne/chaos stuff, you could easily set that on Armageddon. Likewise your background fluff for your grandmaster is set by you, why not have that as his story and use relics and warlord traits to represent that past? Better yet, run the Amrageddon crusade part, then when that's done, take a lowly named strike squad member and use them as your grand master in the next one. Carry their name and story over.

The only thing the current rules lack are specific missions for armageddon and fixed force rosters, which are really one off battles and not campaigns in that sense.

Yes but you know how it works. People like their OFFICIAL RUELEZ to do it for them.

I've known more than one player in my life that won't work with anything if it's not written by the original publisher and there is an advantage to having a third party 'ombudsman' to settle debate (or cause it).

I don't personally mind myself. I'd create characters as it is and assign points to them, some of my mates will play them, others wont. We'd also make our own scenarios up but we're hardly the representative of the entire player base (Winters case and point).

beast_gts wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The price for Szarekh looks positively sensible next to the Chaplain!

I'm not surprised by the Chaplain - the GSC Jackal Alphus is £25 and she's normal human-sized on a dirt bike.

...Who is hilariously easy to kitbash from the bike kit that costs like 15$ more and comes with near-identical bikes and bits.

Winters was my 2nd favorite batrep guy but he has lost so much respect from me with his 2 crusade rants. Crusade gives the framework for people to do literally what he does on his channel, yet he says it's terrible. Watch his saga of the wolf stuff--it's almost EXACTLY what crusade is trying to do, yet he says crusade makes no sense? His arguments are really the definition of stupid.

I'm sorry but he's clearly got some old man "get off my lawn thing" going on, and he hasn't even tried Crusade.

He says people want to re-enact campaigns and stuff, but those products exist from GW and he's also never used them, and even panned them on his channel as well.

Space Marine Chapter article up

Even though the names may be familiar to many of you, some of the Chapter Tactics have undergone subtle changes that really help to hit home the character, attitude and fighting methods of the Chapter. Take the Space Wolves, for example, whose hunger for glory and ferocity on the counter-attack are legend. The new Chapter Tactic means that now it’s not just their Characters who can make Heroic Interventions, but ALL of their eligible units!

That’s not all – if you’ve created your own Space Marines Chapter, you’ll be pleased to know the new codex includes full rules for creating your own Successor Tactics, too. All you need to do is pick the two Successor Tactics that best identify the character or play style you have in mind from those listed, and boom – instant Chapter Tactics! Here are a few examples:

Long range marksmen is altered a fair bit is it not?

The only major clarification I think that's needed is if the successors are still benefitting from the Parent super-doctrine bonus or not.

Dudeface wrote:
Long range marksmen is altered a fair bit is it not?

Doesnt work on flamers anymore but all flamers are getting +4 range this eddition...They are getting it for free now LOL.

So Space wolves/DA/BA are all getting a +1 stat and another useful ability.

Sure hope Ultras get something useful. This +1 LD just don't cutt it man. Fall back and shoot is so meh...even if they remove the -1 to hit part of it - it's so meh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The only major clarification I think that's needed is if the successors are still benefitting from the Parent super-doctrine bonus or not.

Do we even have an info about superdoctrines still being a thing?

Since they have said the codex supplements are still legal why wouldn’t they be staying?

Dudeface wrote:
UK prices up from Valrak on B&C, which makes some of the conversion rates... odd?

The prices don't follow actual exchange　rates but price bands.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Long range marksmen is altered a fair bit is it not?

Doesnt work on flamers anymore but all flamers are getting +4 range this eddition...They are getting it for free now LOL.

So Space wolves/DA/BA are all getting a +1 stat and another useful ability.

Sure hope Ultras get something useful. This +1 LD just don't cutt it man. Fall back and shoot is so meh...even if they remove the -1 to hit part of it - it's so meh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The only major clarification I think that's needed is if the successors are still benefitting from the Parent super-doctrine bonus or not.

Do we even have an info about superdoctrines still being a thing?

Since doctrines still exist and the supplements aren't invalidated, yes the super doctrines still exist. The only unknown is what the normal doctrines do, WD confirmed they're a thing but didn't state if they were still -1 ap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
UK prices up from Valrak on B&C, which makes some of the conversion rates... odd?

The prices don't follow actual exchange　rates but price bands.

Oh I get that but they don't even line up with UK existing price bands for the relative bracket in dollars.

Another interesting change here: The name of the Deathwatch Chapter Tactics has changed from "mission tactics" to "Xenos Hunters."

I have a sinking feeling that yet another aspect of the Deathwatch's rules is being changed to only take effect if you're playing against 1 of 8 different factions in this game with 26 factions in it.

Dudeface wrote:
Long range marksmen is altered a fair bit is it not?

Quite a bit, yes. No longer helps Pistols (which mattered little) but the hit to Assault Weapons is lame and out of nowhere.

 Jack Flask wrote:
That's the function of Crusade.

I actually really like Crusade - it's 40K Necromunda to me, and that's awesome - but there is a point to be made when the Narrative section of a rulebook is filled to the gills with rules over actual narrative play stuff as it was in 8th.

I guess they just should have never put Crusade under the heading of "Narrative Play", and just had it as "Crusade".

 Jack Flask wrote:

Additional rules that allow for army progression through a campaign = "You have to learn more rules on top of 9e and your army, so this only applies to people who like spreadsheets"

Yes, that is how supplements work. Is that even an argument?

Lol. If he compares crusade to spreadsheet maybe he should stick with rock paper scissor

the_scotsman wrote:
Another interesting change here: The name of the Deathwatch Chapter Tactics has changed from "mission tactics" to "Xenos Hunters."

I have a sinking feeling that yet another aspect of the Deathwatch's rules is being changed to only take effect if you're playing against 1 of 8 different factions in this game with 26 factions in it.

26 is pushing it a bit, I'd not encourage an officio assassinorum army.

The new grim resolve looks really strong. If you are charged on your opponents turn you should get +1 to hit sense it excludes pile in and consolidation moves.

Never mind all that.

Baal Repulsor with twin Gatling anyone?

Hold on....think that’s been previewed already.

Silly me.

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Long range marksmen is altered a fair bit is it not?

Doesnt work on flamers anymore but all flamers are getting +4 range this eddition...They are getting it for free now LOL.

So Space wolves/DA/BA are all getting a +1 stat and another useful ability.

Sure hope Ultras get something useful. This +1 LD just don't cutt it man. Fall back and shoot is so meh...even if they remove the -1 to hit part of it - it's so meh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
The only major clarification I think that's needed is if the successors are still benefitting from the Parent super-doctrine bonus or not.

Do we even have an info about superdoctrines still being a thing?

Since doctrines still exist and the supplements aren't invalidated, yes the super doctrines still exist. The only unknown is what the normal doctrines do, WD confirmed they're a thing but didn't state if they were still -1 ap.

They haven't been invalidated but that doesn't mean that super doctrines won't change. They said everything else was still valid, and then the erratas were released. The Black Legion stuff in Vigilus still works, but specialist detachments are gone from competitive play. They could change.