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.
....folks who want a bit more narrative, but don't trust "traditional" narrative gamer mechanisms (houserules, game masters, etc) because they're not "official".
Which is the typical mentality of tourney-hammer dudes .
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again, just because you have the same blurb for the 6th time, new players don't.
In other words, just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it does not matter.
As someone who is regularly bringing people into the hobby, the vast majority of new people don't read those blurbs to inform themselves about fluff. They use wikis, read novels, watch youtube videos. They use modern media, just like they do for other hobbies which have a rich background. Some don't even own codices in the first place.
The only people who care about half-asses fluff stuck to rules that should not be printed in the first places are veterans. Supplying your audience with your background in printed books is just as outdated as printing constantly changing rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/28 07:52:55
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
At least they removed all mention of Tesserarions and Decurions, especially Tesserarions were a bad invention.
Reprinting the same lore for units every three years was a huge waste, it makes sense that it is gone with the product GW wants codices to be.
I think removing all matched play rules from codices would help codices focus on evergreen aspects of the game. That's another 60+ pages for unit lore and art, terrain guides, missions, custom vehicles etc. A lot of the fluff that you find on wiki sites has been pirated from codexes, no codex fluff, no wiki fluff.
This type of codex would last 5-10 years before the lore would have to be updated and the narrative rules need to be changed to fit with however the game looks in the future, similar to old-school codex release schedules.
Indexes, chapter approved (without narrative rules like custom vehicles) and munitorum field manuals could be made more economical by not having colour or hardcovers to fit with them being replaced every 1-4 years. Updating this production line content would be easier since GW would not have to dig around for new fluff, miniature photos and art to update the rules of an army, just black ink.
Bosskelot wrote: Crusade completely fails as a casual game mode though.
It's easier and more straightforward to play a Strike Force game using the GT Mission Pack than it is to play a Crusade game right now.
GT Mission Pack + Munitorum Field Manual 2020 completely failed as a fair and balanced competitive game mode. Points were dumbed down making many wargear options useless and the GT mission pack was not accounted for when they balanced points so many units were overpriced since they easily gave away VP in the missions. It'd be more fair and balanced to play PL using the Only War mission.
This type of codex would last 5-10 years before the lore would have to be updated and the narrative rules need to be changed to fit with however the game looks in the future, similar to old-school codex release schedules.
You say that like it's a good thing.
To GW that means you're not buying another book for 5-10 years, and that won't stand!
....folks who want a bit more narrative, but don't trust "traditional" narrative gamer mechanisms (houserules, game masters, etc) because they're not "official".
Which is the typical mentality of tourney-hammer dudes .
Nah, not trusting other people is just as a thing for people who never in their lived played in a tournament.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I think removing all matched play rules from codices would help codices focus on evergreen aspects of the game. That's another 60+ pages for unit lore and art, terrain guides, missions, custom vehicles etc. A lot of the fluff that you find on wiki sites has been pirated from codexes, no codex fluff, no wiki fluff.
So ... we'll just make them completely useless then? Honestly, if we were going to remove something to make more room for fluff, remove the Crusade rules. Drop those into a cheap expansion pack and call it a day. You could do a GT style "Crusade" book for $20 that has the Crusade rules for every army, plus some fun Crusade style missions and be set. Much easier than removing match play rules that nearly everyone needs ...
Like Doc, I too miss the sections that had fluff on individual units, but I have to also confess that it occurs to me I have all three 9th ed books released so far, and I haven't actually looked for that fluff, so I guess I don't miss it as much as I thought I did. How do you all feel about the fluff that IS there? I still read novels and enjoy the lore, but more and more I'm noticing that where I used to get excited to read the fluff sections in the codexes, I now tend to skip them and come back later. They aren't holding up as well for me for some reason.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
First, let my say that I do miss those unit entries. I also miss the graphic representations of the faction's organizational structure and the Sector map that shows you the locations of all the faction's assets.
Having said that, I LOVE the Crusade content and the fact that the rules section is bigger. It isn't just Crusade that makes it bigger either; we're getting more strats, which are better categorized and organized than they've ever been; we're getting more subfaction specific content, more relics, etc.
But I'm with y'all in missing the other stuff. I wouldn't sacrifice rules content to bring it back, because I'm really, really digging the extra rules content. Luckily, I keep my old dexes- that gets me my organizational charts and sector maps plus the unit entries for older units.
Since Crusade came up though, I've got to respond.
Crusade is for casual folks and competitive folks who want a bit more narrative, but don't trust "traditional" narrative gamer mechanisms (houserules, game masters, etc) because they're not "official".
Going to cut you some slack and assume that you are a narrative player who hangs and plays with other narrative players who also share your opinion. And maybe it doesn't do as much as your group wants it to do. And you're all entitled to your opinions.
But you don't speak for me. See, I've identified as a narrative player since 1989; I've written enough fan fic to fill a book, all of it based on what happened on the tabletop. I've got squads that have been hitting the table for two decades and I can still tell you which battle gave which purity seals to which squad members; I can tell you who the skulls on their bases belonged to and why they have bionics. Because my models didn't start with any of that- they earned it.
Few of the people in my group take it to the extremes I do, but all of us consider ourselves narrative players. And we are stoked about Crusade.
Ok, cook, I can do the same, and clearly Crusade wasn't required for you to do that, so let's see how crusade actually helps you...
A progression system is a "pinch" of narrative, just a bit of flavor to an otherwise exactly-the-same game.
If you think that Crusade is just a progression system, you haven't been reading Crusade rules.What else is it and why?
Our Agendas, the equivalent of secondaries, are faction specific, tailored to the background of our factions.They're just secondaries though. The reward comes in the form of progression rather than "victory points" but progression isn't narrative easier. Having faction specific objectives is only a tiny part of narrative play. Heck, the REAL competitive player secondaries are also faction specific and tailored to the backgrounds of your factions, so Crusade once again is just progression on top of a normal mechanic. Our Requisitions- the ways in which our armies can grow- are faction specific.Maybe it's because my factions don't have new codexes, but I'm playing with players who play SM (DA, BT, Deathwatch) and I've seen exactly 0 unique units or unique growth they couldn't've gotten from the BRB system. Units can go through extreme changes in game, moving from one battlefield role to another.That can't happen during game and could be done with or without Crusade. A Character can become a Dreadnought between games without crusade telling you how to do it or formalizing it. Our experience advances are faction specific;yay, progression is faction specific! It's still just progression. No story writing required, +30 XP, buy sharper sword. Deathwatch can earn roles that no other faction can earnwhat do you mean "roles?" this strikes me as nonsense ; our Crusade relics are uniquesso are your non-crusade relics, same as matched play. Crusade not required. , and some of them get more powerful over time as wellprogression != narrative. We have specific wounds, both physical and mental that other factions do not receive because they fight in different theatres of war against different types of opponents.Except in a given theatre of war, you fight the same opponents as everyone else in that theater.
Ever field a Chapter Master?No, but if I did I don't need formalized Crusade rules to tell me how, when, and why he became a chapter master from a captain.
Guess what? We've got the capacity to tell how, when and why our captains BECAME Chapter Masters.I had that for most of my characters long long long long long long before Crusade existed as a system.
Now it's true that there are rules for selecting advances randomly, and of course, some people will choose to go that route because they are hung up on balance or whatever. When you, or your group insist on playing that way, sometimes you're going to roll a result that doesn't fit what just happened on the battlefield or your sense of the character's identity. But that's certainly not GW's fault- they very clearly tell you that picking the result that best suits the story is also an option.
If you think that Crusade is just a progression system, you are not very creative when it comes to figuring out how to use the toolbox you've been given.The problem with Crusade isn't that I'm not using it, the problem is that it provides tools I already have. I don't need another flathead screwdriver; I've had one the whole time I've been playing narrative. Give me something new and different pls. I've studied the tool box pretty damn extensively, and the crew I play with STILL manages to surprise me.
It's like adding a slice of cheese on top of a flatbread and going "voila, pizza!"
Yeah, if one of the grains ground to make the dough got ground in the Red Scar fighting Tyranids, while another grain is a fresh faced Primaris unit sent to reinforce the chapter after the Hive fleet decimated it and the cheese went through four distinct aging processes to become the exact palate of flavours that was chosen to become a Watch Master. And don't get me started on the Proteus Vet who BECAME a Blackshield or the Dreadnaught who fought through all of his wounds until he could fight no more with such weak flesh, and donned flesh of ceramite and steel rather than abandoning his battle brothers.
while actual pizza connoisseurs are rolling their eyes and going back to making real pizza with all the same usual ingredients they did. Though if they like the flavor of cheese you picked they might steal some of it to add.
And they might make a mean pizza. But they couldn't tell you where each ingredient comes from, and how it was ground, sliced or aged into its current form or by whom and when. They'd essentially pick all of their pre-processed ingredients from a list ready made to combine. They couldn't tell you who sliced it, because they don't care- as long as their peperoni tastes better than their opponent's peperoni, and come to think of it, the next time they do a taste test, if they're up against a vegetarian pizza, they might choose not to use that peperoni at all, because you know, they have access to every ingredient for every taste test, where the guy with the flatbread started with only a single type of grain and EARNED the rest of the stuff to make his flatbread taste the way it does from competing in other taste tests.
Maybe that's just my group. But one of us is obviously having more fun the other with Crusade rules, and I'm always looking for new chefs.
What I read here, PenitentJake, is that you houserule a whole lot of stuff and fold the crusade rules in with it.
So in other words, exactly what I said: You, as a narrative player, are just adding Crusade to your toolbox, while Crusade itself is inadequate for narrative play without houseruling.
Good talk, thanks for the agreement!
EDIT:
In the spoiler I go point by point in red text.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/28 18:17:10
Voss wrote: ...Maybe. But the crusade rules certainly aren't the fault of 'those dirty tournament players,' which is what I was responding to.
If I understood the intent of the Crusade section, its _for_ the narrative folks, right?
Oh, sure, but the Crusade rules read to me like "narrative" rules dragged kicking and screaming out of people who would really rather be writing tournament rules. They're half-baked, don't fix any of the problems with casual play that the tournament focus of the main game creates, and don't support non-tournament-legal stuff in any way. Saying "but Crusade..." isn't an all-solving answer to people complaining about GW gutting casual/narrative play to focus on competitive play.
(It's not the fault of the "dirty tournament players", it's the fault of the design team who thinks the rest of us have stopped existing.)
Sorry, but I hated the hell out of "we're fighting on this planet today - roll to see how much of your army dies! Narrative!".
I think removing all matched play rules from codices would help codices focus on evergreen aspects of the game. That's another 60+ pages for unit lore and art, terrain guides, missions, custom vehicles etc. A lot of the fluff that you find on wiki sites has been pirated from codexes, no codex fluff, no wiki fluff.
So ... we'll just make them completely useless then? Honestly, if we were going to remove something to make more room for fluff, remove the Crusade rules. Drop those into a cheap expansion pack and call it a day. You could do a GT style "Crusade" book for $20 that has the Crusade rules for every army, plus some fun Crusade style missions and be set. Much easier than removing match play rules that nearly everyone needs ...
They wouldn't be useless for people that find value in unit lore, art, terrain guides, dioramas, missions, crusade and narrative rules. Just because it is not something that we rush to read when a new codex comes out does not mean it does not have value and not something worth having on a shelf in a digital library to read when the rules/pts update hype dies down. Tonnes of people find the crusade rules valuable, bundling crusade rules with other narrative elements of the game like fluff, modelling and fun unbalanced narrative rules makes more sense than bundling fluff with datasheets at the cost of datasheets not being updated as often as they should (CSM are still 1W lower than they are intended to be). Crusade rules not being updated more than once every 10 years doesn't matter as much as the disconnect between 2W Marines and 1W CSM. Besides 10 pages does not give us back the unit lore back, you are still 10 pages short after cutting Crusade rules from codexes.
All the rules for factions, aside from datasheets and explanations for the rules on the datasheets need to be separated out so they can be worked on as part of a yearly rules update to avoid the trickle release of new rules like chapter tactics (8th edition codex), stratagems (8th edition codexes and campaigns) and faction objectives (8th and 9th edition codex), it makes sense to bundle all of these updates along with mission rules in Chapter Approved as the book that holds all the rules changes to the game. Chapter Approved narrative and fun rules can go into codexes and campaign books, although I think for the most part campaign books are more of a miss than a hit, mostly they were spent updating different (C)SM factions, something that could have been handled with an index or two in one fell swoop. Datasheets could either be released bundled or unbundled with those of other factions but I think it would be neat if you didn't have to lug around a bunch of lore that has no impact on the game, even digitally it just makes it more difficult to navigate to the datasheets.
But that would mean that people who are interested in rules only would soon wake up in a world where they either have to buy the bad GW app, or have to buy 4-5 books per year each time GW decides to put out another rules update.
Seems like a big hit to a large number of people, just to make a few people playing narrative happy.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Racerguy180 wrote: They really need to divorce tourney rules from the fun stuff, but they're gonna slowly kill everything that isn't tourney rules instead.
I suspect that trying to keep tournament and casual rules in a single set would kill tourney play as much as it kills casual play.
Why is it pointless?
Remeber just because you might have 6 codexes sitting on your shelf full of art and fluff. It could be somebody's first codex ever.
I didn't mean it was pointless to provide background but that it seems pointless (as in redundant) to re-write and re-publish the same background every codex just for the sake of it not being a copy and paste of the previous codex when it contains very little new content. This is especially the case where GW is cutting down on background content to save space, thus reducing the quality and value of the background provided (I've had to refer to previous codexes to fill holes left in the current ones because there was very little detail on sub factions or characters). I thought the background in the 8th edition Eldar codex was so good because it was mostly copy and pasted from 2nd edition, when they frankly were better at writing background. It would seem more logical to have a single, high quality and comprehensive (living?) source. I acknowledge the problem with this is that when you partition off the background and supply it separately, even if the new source is free, you cut down a lot of players engagement with it. That's something I don't want to see, but I also don't want to see pointlessly rehashed background of degrading length and quality.
I just feel there should be a better way of handling background than the current approach provides. Maybe in future technology will provide an answer - maybe we'll have electronic codexes without the page restrictions of current printed codexes that would allow the rules to be updated each release and the background left untouched or expanded to add in new events and depth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/28 19:43:04
I am surprised that in the gallery section of the Death Guard book they couldn't use a single page to show off the variant colour schemes for the different Plague Companies - heck, we managed to get that sort of content back in Dark Imperium, from memory, so it wouldn't be too much to ask here.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
I was surprised that the SM codex didn't have descriptions and images for all the units this time. In the datasheets some of the photos are only a small part of the model too, so new players aren't going to know what some of the units look like!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/29 09:59:07
I reject the notion that 40k Codices have "casual" and "tournament" rules.
There are simple the rules for the units, and that's it. There's a campaign system they've decided to include in each book (Crusade) rather than trying to put them into inconsistent and weirdly-paced supplements, but aside from that, there are simple the rules for the army in question.
Why is it pointless?
Remeber just because you might have 6 codexes sitting on your shelf full of art and fluff. It could be somebody's first codex ever.
I didn't mean it was pointless to provide background but that it seems pointless (as in redundant) to re-write and re-publish the same background every codex just for the sake of it not being a copy and paste of the previous codex when it contains very little new content. This is especially the case where GW is cutting down on background content to save space, thus reducing the quality and value of the background provided (I've had to refer to previous codexes to fill holes left in the current ones because there was very little detail on sub factions or characters). I thought the background in the 8th edition Eldar codex was so good because it was mostly copy and pasted from 2nd edition, when they frankly were better at writing background. It would seem more logical to have a single, high quality and comprehensive (living?) source. I acknowledge the problem with this is that when you partition off the background and supply it separately, even if the new source is free, you cut down a lot of players engagement with it. That's something I don't want to see, but I also don't want to see pointlessly rehashed background of degrading length and quality.
I just feel there should be a better way of handling background than the current approach provides. Maybe in future technology will provide an answer - maybe we'll have electronic codexes without the page restrictions of current printed codexes that would allow the rules to be updated each release and the background left untouched or expanded to add in new events and depth.
Mu sugestion is: Have a bare bones rules + datasheets codex and a collectors one with all the fluff and art.
It sounds like soemthing GW would be well up for doing as it means potentialy selling players 2 books instead of just 1...
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
What I read here, PenitentJake, is that you houserule a whole lot of stuff and fold the crusade rules in with it.
So in other words, exactly what I said: You, as a narrative player, are just adding Crusade to your toolbox, while Crusade itself is inadequate for narrative play without houseruling.
Good talk, thanks for the agreement!
EDIT:
In the spoiler I go point by point in red text.
Thanks for your response- I learned a lot of formatting stuff rereading after I quoted it.
But I think your analysis of Crusade is very oversimplified. I'm sorry that you wanted a system that changed the story DURING a battle or altered the rules of fighting a battle. I'm not sure either of those things are either necessary or realistic for a good narrative system.
So let's use the Chapter Master as a specific example to illustrate the point. Yes, you can take one from the codex; yes you can write your own history for it; yes you can convert so that it looks unique. But all of its special abilities will be the same as every other straight from the dex chapter master, with the exception of chapter tactics, but those will be the same as every other chapter master from the same chapter. Or you can house rule.
Now let's say that I, as a Crusade player, decide to start at 50 PL so I can bring two captains. Eventually, one of them is going to become a chapter master, but before they can take that upgrade, they have to reach at least heroic level, which means that minimally, they need to fight enough battles to earn two battle battle honours, and the chapter master counts as their third. Now the rules, as written, give you the choice between generating Battle Honours randomly or picking them. If you choose to pick them, you can either do so for advantage, or based on the story.
You probably guessed it, I am a guy who chooses based on story. So let's say the first captain earns his first battle honour by wiping out an important unit in hand to hand. I'm going to pick a battle honour that boosts his hand to hand skill. Let's say the second guy earns his battle honour by blowing away the enemy warlord from the other side of the table. He's going to get a shooty battle honour. Now as a player, I couldn't predict how long it would take to earn those honours, nor could I predict the circumstances under which they would be earned. I use the Crusade rules as written to allow the story of the games I have played to determine those things.
Now clearly, by the time they are ready to become chapter masters, they are different from each other- they have different rules despite the fact that they are both captains. In addition to different battle honours, they may also have battle scars by then, likely different ones- again, based on how those wounds were inflicted in battle. So now, based on how they grew and diverged, I get to decide which one would make a better chapter master based on their story. And when they become a chapter master, they will be different than any chapter master chosen directly from the dex.
That situation couldn't happen without the Crusade system. And because of the Crusade system, it doesn't require a single house rule. You may have wanted rules to make a narrative out of each battle, rather than the narrative of a campaign or a series of battles, but here's the thing: special rules aren't required to make a story out of a battle. If your warlord is removed from play in turn two, obviously he isn't there to contribute in turns three, four or five, nor are they there to provide aura support. YOU DON"T NEED RULES TO TELL THE STORY OF A BATTLE; ITS ALREADY A STORY. That's why Crusade rules don't modify the way battles are fought. (Actually, they do, because of the functional differences between the way secondaries operate and the way agendas operate; in matched, achieving a secondary affects the whole army, where agendas affect only the units which actually achieve them- of course, you'll say since all of that only has an effect AFTER the battle that it doesn't actually matter).
As for the changing roles and specific options for deathwatch, what I'm talking about are specialisms. Sure, you can choose them right out of the dex, but again if you do that, your Proteus Kill team with the Aquila specialism will be the same as every other Proteus Kill Team with an Aquila specialism chosen directly from the dex. But you can also take that specialism as an upgrade, and if you do that, you can choose the specialism based on what unit type the Kill Team has killed more of, which is the thing that makes the rule into a story. Masters of the Specialisms for DW characters work the same way- except here, I'm not sure you can even by that from the codex- I could be wrong, but I think it's only available via Crusade, so you have to earn it.
Another great DW one is the ability for a regular veteran in a proteus kill team to become a Blackshield. Here's why this is so important: the rules for proteus kill teams require you to take five veterans (one of which is the sergeant); none of these are legally allowed to be Blackshield- they must be vets. Your other five soldiers in the team can be a mix of anything so this is is where a blackshield from the dex would go, but if you want bikers to act like bikers, vanguard vets to act like vanguard vets or your termies to act like termies, you must take 5 and combat squad them; if you take a blackshield, he screws that up. BUT in Crusade, you can take five vets and 5 bikes and combat squad them and after a few battles, you can pick one of your four vets and upgrade it to a blackshield, and it stays with the veteran half of the team so it does screw your bikers out of turbo boost. This another example of a way in which Crusade can modify how battles are fought.
Do I use Houserules? I'll be honest, yes I do. My chaos and genestealer cults started as kill teams and had to recruit members by defeating them in battle- either injecting them with Slaaneshi corrupted drugs, or giving them the genestealer kiss. I also count Platoon commanders as HQ choices rather than elites because each platoon is an independent detachment based in a different territory, so if they get attacked and have to fight, they need an HQ to be an army. But these rules are only necessary because of the campaign we've created, not because the crusade system is lacking. Once the new Chaos, GSC and Imperial Guard dexes drop, their crusade content may make my houserules unnecessary. I doubt it, but it's possible.
I think the issue is that you think the crusade system should make the rules of playing games different. From my point of view, that would be incredibly stupid. First, it would decrees the odds of getting a matched player to try try it because they'd have to learn an entirely new ruleset, and second, because as mentioned above, a battle already is a story without needing rules to make it into one. If you want to change a battle with special rules to make it somehow feel like more of a story when it already is one, that's on you. GW isn't going to give you rules for that- I suspect because like me, they feel like a battle is already enough of a story as is; they make different missions to tell different stories, and they even have separate missions for matched and narrative; they even have a whole book of Crusade only missions set in the Pariah nexus and another one is on the way for the next campaign setting.
So about missing the content of old dexes, I'm with you. About Crusade, the only agreement you'll get is an agreement to disagree- I think it's awesome; I think the difference between playing it and matched is as clear as the difference between night and day, and having played Crusade, I now longer have any interest in playing 40k any other way. I'll leave it at that, because while I've found our conversation to be very interesting and you seem to be a pretty reasonable dude, Crusade vs Matched isn't actually the topic of this thread, nor is whether or not the Crusade system requires house rules to make it good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/29 00:40:50
I really hope they don't stay with physical Codexes. So many problems with the game exist because GW can't edit the rules after release, so their tiny narrow playtest pool misses things, and then they can't fix them once the wider community notices because they don't want to devalue their paper book. Even today when they're FAQing things more regularly and points get overhauled twice a year there are still things they won't change because they wrote them down in a book.
AnomanderRake wrote: I really hope they don't stay with physical Codexes. So many problems with the game exist because GW can't edit the rules after release, so their tiny narrow playtest pool misses things, and then they can't fix them once the wider community notices because they don't want to devalue their paper book. Even today when they're FAQing things more regularly and points get overhauled twice a year there are still things they won't change because they wrote them down in a book.
True - printing stuff does "pin them down." Still, I'd much rather flip through a book at the table than a phone or tablet. Printing books might also encourage some rigour. There big changes have been to points - easy enough to do with the new Munitorium format. Here's to hoping they keep those free updates.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Yes, it’s a lesser spotted Grump from yours’ truly. And it’s about 9th Ed Codexes.
Basically? Where the background for units, both new and old? I mean, the majority of them have background already. So writing up some interesting stuff for the new is hardly a massive undertaking.
For my beloved Necrons, I’ve three new flavours of Destroyers I know little about. Ophydian, Skorpekh and Hexmark. All I get is a tiny blurb on their unit entry.
Frankly, it’s just not good enough. Yes, it’s better than 3rd Ed, the absolute nadir of Codex design ethos, as we do get background for the army and it’s politics etc. But...the units. You need to sell them both by model, rules and coolness of background.
It really does feel like an oversight or a misprint in the Necron Codex - but no, it’s a design decision, and one I cannot fathom.
Am likely to remain grumpy about this for some time.
I am also engrumped by this development. I had seen it in Space Marines but figured that was a side effect of 100-odd dataslates. Later discovered that it's everyone. Disappointing and engrumping in equal measure should this continue.
GT Mission Pack + Munitorum Field Manual 2020 completely failed as a fair and balanced competitive game mode. Points were dumbed down making many wargear options useless and the GT mission pack was not accounted for when they balanced points so many units were overpriced since they easily gave away VP in the missions. It'd be more fair and balanced to play PL using the Only War mission.
Crusade uses the same points values and similar mission design so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Besides, my point had nothing to do with the balance of matched play, but rather that it is easier and more straightforward to play a competitive GT Matched Play Mission than it is to play the Crusade stuff.
Dysartes wrote: I am surprised that in the gallery section of the Death Guard book they couldn't use a single page to show off the variant colour schemes for the different Plague Companies - heck, we managed to get that sort of content back in Dark Imperium, from memory, so it wouldn't be too much to ask here.
I'm rather happy that they don't lock a paint scheme you liked years ago into a specific set of rules.
PenitentJake wrote: ...But these rules are only necessary because of the campaign we've created, not because the crusade system is lacking...
If the Crusade system was enough on its own why did you need to create a campaign?
Campaign rules usually have a different focus than crusade does. Crusade essentially handles army progression, while a campaign tells the story and tells you which battles are fought where.
In P&P terms, crusade would be the classes, traits and feat books which handle how you level up, while the campaign rules are the adventure book. The actual game you play would be the combat rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/29 07:03:28
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
For me it is fluff that makes army books. If the High Elf army book I borrowed way back when had been rules alone I doubt I'd ever have got into the game.
Perhaps the ideal compromise would be to sell the physical codexes as the definitive guide to the faction. These would contain all the fluff and artwork we used to love. Along with all the rules.
I agree that the art and lore is great to have. But I already have it and I don't want to buy it again.
Then, a digital mini-codex is also sold which is just the rules.
This way veterans like myself don't need to buy the full codex.
Ideally it would be programmed with layers so it can look nice with fancy backgrounds, but also be easily printed without draining three bottles of ink.
It would be great if the rulebook worked the same way.
But I know it's a forlorn hope. They make a lot of money on forcibly up-selling codexes to the 'comprehensive edition'.
.
[1,800] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
Eldar- 4436 pts
