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.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Whatever happens, I hope they stay with physical Codexes. When someone rocks up with their "codex" on their phone I know I am in for a rough game.

That is true, but if digital stuff is all printed brought along to the game and then you are good to go.

A physical codex isn't always enough, especially when someone says "oh but that has been FAQed, I can actually do this now, and I win you lose. I just don't have the FAQ on me. Now which FAQ is it..." And you both just either lose too much time searching, or just say na... Me, if the guy can't find it, I say na man, next time bring the rules with you. And if I win although the dude was right, then tough luck, next time perhaps he will think about bringin his F..ing rules along with his minis

No having your own rules with you is just as bad as showing up with unpainted minis or proxies.

It just shows a lack of respect

How about they just sell Codices that aren't a complete rip-off and contain equal parts fluff, artwork, photos of the units in the book and rules/unit entries.

It's not like they haven't done that in the past. For decades.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How about they just sell Codices that aren't a complete rip-off and contain equal parts fluff, artwork, photos of the units in the book and rules/unit entries.

It's not like they haven't done that in the past. For decades.

Old rulebooks contained very few rules. 3rd edition Codex Necrons was 68 pages total, 17 pages of rules. 5th 100 total, 25 rules, 9th 125 total, 65 rules. More units, crusade, objectives, relics, WL traits, chapter tactics. If I am in a fluffy mood what do I need datasheets for? Constantly opening and closing the book for games is going to make it less valuable as a collection item and an art gallery.

They wouldn't be useless for people that find value in unit lore, art, terrain guides, dioramas, missions, crusade and narrative rules.

Here's the issue. What you seem to want is a hobby/narrative play guide. The vast majority of 40k players need the match play rules. Going to a local game night for pickup games? You're gonna play matched play rules. Tournament? Match play rules? Fun weekend game at a friend's house? Probably match play rules ...

It's a lot easier to make a hobby/narrative play guide in a similar format to the GT booklet, that has a full hobby section (not just pictures of models as in the current books, but an actual hobby section), along with each army's narrative rules. This makes much more sense than cutting the match play rules, which are, frankly, the point of the codex to begin with.

I do wish they had more fluff - a big reason I didn't really play 3rd is because the army books had basically become black and white pamphlets with no lore to get you excited about the army, but you need to balance form and function. Expanding lore at the expense of the main point of the book makes no sense at all imo.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Whatever happens, I hope they stay with physical Codexes. When someone rocks up with their "codex" on their phone I know I am in for a rough game.

if you're playing against people that regularly need to look stuff up in their codex, you're already in for a rough game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:

They wouldn't be useless for people that find value in unit lore, art, terrain guides, dioramas, missions, crusade and narrative rules.

Here's the issue. What you seem to want is a hobby/narrative play guide. The vast majority of 40k players need the match play rules. Going to a local game night for pickup games? You're gonna play matched play rules. Tournament? Match play rules? Fun weekend game at a friend's house? Probably match play rules ...

It's a lot easier to make a hobby/narrative play guide in a similar format to the GT booklet, that has a full hobby section (not just pictures of models as in the current books, but an actual hobby section), along with each army's narrative rules. This makes much more sense than cutting the match play rules, which are, frankly, the point of the codex to begin with.

I do wish they had more fluff - a big reason I didn't really play 3rd is because the army books had basically become black and white pamphlets with no lore to get you excited about the army, but you need to balance form and function. Expanding lore at the expense of the main point of the book makes no sense at all imo.

agreed 100%. Put nothing else than the rules in the codexes so that its easily carryable to games. Add another book with a focus on fluff and the hobby aspect (give it things like the painting tutorials that AoS battletomes have).

Sell both in a bundle for the similar price as a current codex or separately for a discount.

 vict0988 wrote:
Old rulebooks contained very few rules. 3rd edition Codex Necrons was 68 pages total, 17 pages of rules. 5th 100 total, 25 rules, 9th 125 total, 65 rules. More units, crusade, objectives, relics, WL traits, chapter tactics. If I am in a fluffy mood what do I need datasheets for? Constantly opening and closing the book for games is going to make it less valuable as a collection item and an art gallery.

Great comparison. Necrons now vs Necrons at their inception, where they had almost as many units as I have fingers.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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?

The campaign is the star system where the series of games takes place. Battles need to happen somewhere, right? And no rules system is going dictate where games take place or which armies take part.

I chose to invent a star system, and planets because I wanted to use existing elements of the 40k background in my story. The Tyranid attack on the Red Scar, the opening of the Cicatrix Maledictum and the discovery of the Blackstone Fortress on the galactic western fringe of Pacificus are all events that shape the story.

I could play Crusade right out of the Pariah Nexus mission pack if I wanted to- it's actually an awesome little book, and I plan to play through it someday. It also combines really nicely with the Argovon stuff from WD, which I will likely add- the two products were designed to work together.

But calling this out is like saying Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good system because someone chooses to play in Forgotten Realms or Eberron. People who actually play the game will tell you that the fact that both Eberron and Forgotten realms exist, plus the fact that the system allows you to create your own campaign if you choose to do so is strength of the D&D rules set, not a weakness.

Same is true here. It's AWESOME that I can play in the Pariah system, or at Argovon, or in the new location that's coming soon (forgot the name- Charadon or something?), or that I can choose to make my own.

I try not to get personal in posts because I think there's enough rage and self righteousness out there on the internet, but I have to say, if you have such vast experience that you feel qualified to judge the Crusade system, I'm surprised you had to ask this question. Most people who are into narrative gaming do know that a campaign is different from the rules system that facilitates it's creation.

 vict0988 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How about they just sell Codices that aren't a complete rip-off and contain equal parts fluff, artwork, photos of the units in the book and rules/unit entries.

It's not like they haven't done that in the past. For decades.

Old rulebooks contained very few rules. 3rd edition Codex Necrons was 68 pages total, 17 pages of rules. 5th 100 total, 25 rules, 9th 125 total, 65 rules. More units, crusade, objectives, relics, WL traits, chapter tactics. If I am in a fluffy mood what do I need datasheets for? Constantly opening and closing the book for games is going to make it less valuable as a collection item and an art gallery.

Well, for one, they aren't 'collection items,' I know some people like to treat them that way, but like most things produced by the modern book industry, they're disposable, with little lasting or inherent value. Most books have a 3-4 month life span, then they're returned for bargain status if they're hardback, or for paperbacks just get their cover ripped off and scanned for credit- the rest of the book goes in the garbage (or hopefully recycling). Game books aren't any different beyond the personal value people put on them. GW army books have a longer lifespan than novels, but at this point, its still only a couple years, by design- replaced by the next version.

For two, if you want to see the art gallery, you're going to need to open the book as well.

Citing the 3rd edition codexes is interesting. IIRC, GW stopped doing that stripped-down format because they didn't sell well, and folks complained. People were turned off by the lack of anything but rules, and customers drove the push for more fluff, art and photos.
The majority of players really do want background, art and photographs as well as rules in army books. They also want army books as a general product.

Privateer Press decided to prove this in the worst possible way by taking rules out, and just having fluff books for WM/H. Their book line crashed as a result.

I do agree with the earlier sentiments. I do agree that in an ideal world there would be a slim rules only, paper-back codex at c. $30 and a fluff + hobby stuff + rules in the $50-60 range. But, I have to wonder about the cost of manufacturing the codices as they exist. Every page is covered in artwork, watermarks, dense crowding of images, etc. I don't see how they could split the sales into a slim and full codex without losing money, knowing full well that the majority of people would probably just buy the slim version.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
I do agree with the earlier sentiments. I do agree that in an ideal world there would be a slim rules only, paper-back codex at c. $30 and a fluff + hobby stuff + rules in the $50-60 range. But, I have to wonder about the cost of manufacturing the codices as they exist. Every page is covered in artwork, watermarks, dense crowding of images, etc. I don't see how they could split the sales into a slim and full codex without losing money, knowing full well that the majority of people would probably just buy the slim version.

That would probably happen and the community would be livid. Can't see it happening.

As an aside, citing the lack of material in the 3rd ed. Necron codex is also an odd choice, since that contained some of the best - certainly most original - background material for that faction of any of their books.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
As an aside, citing the lack of material in the 3rd ed. Necron codex is also an odd choice, since that contained some of the best - certainly most original - background material for that faction of any of their books.

Was that the one that was almost a load of horror short stories told from the imperiums perspective? If so, yes great book. I remember looking at the Dark Eldar book in 3rd though, excited to learn about this new faction and decided not to purchase.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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?

It's classic GW defense tactics. Make the players do the work so you don't have to and then praise said players and make them feel special!

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

We'll add this to the other things you're wrong about regarding the Death Guard book, such as the equipment options for Plague Marines and Blightlords.

Just skimming the gallery section quickly, replacing the "content" on pg. 29 (the so-called "Colours of Decay") with the previously-mentioned variant schemes, even without the fluff blurbs, would've been more useful than what's on there.

What's funny is the RRP of the 'dexes went up £5 despite trimming the lore.

People won't stop buying them though, so it's like not GW will give a toss.

 Arbitrator wrote:
What's funny is the RRP of the 'dexes went up £5 despite trimming the lore.

Some of that cost increase may just be a change in printer. They're passing on the extra expense of a UK rather than a Chinese printing house. Unfortunately Western print operations tend to cost more, even accounting for the cost of shipping from China. At least, before 2020, anyway.

It may also be an upcharge for the crusade rules, which in theory take more design hours and QA time than re-writing the fluff sections slightly for the Nth time.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

We'll add this to the other things you're wrong about regarding the Death Guard book, such as the equipment options for Plague Marines and Blightlords.

Just skimming the gallery section quickly, replacing the "content" on pg. 29 (the so-called "Colours of Decay") with the previously-mentioned variant schemes, even without the fluff blurbs, would've been more useful than what's on there.

What? I think we misunderstood each other.

I'm totally happy for having sections where they show of models with different plaint schemes or stuff like the "Colors of Contagion" section in the old codex. I just don't want them to be connected to Plague Companies, because at that point it affects WYSIWYG.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
As an aside, citing the lack of material in the 3rd ed. Necron codex is also an odd choice, since that contained some of the best - certainly most original - background material for that faction of any of their books.

I think it is a perfect choice, it was short on rules and the main reason people loved it was the lore, now the lore has been pushed out because of more rules. The 3rd edition Necrons Codex is exactly what I want a Codex to be, just without the datasheets and with another 50 pages to go through the lore of every unit. Lore needs its own space, either that is the Warhammer Community site, proper novels or a new type of product. I choose to call the new product I want GW to make codexes because we use that term already or you can call them inverse indexes, all the stuff that was cut out in 8th edition indexes without the index stuff because combining an index with an inverse index makes no sense.

You don't need your index when you are reading lore and browsing art and you don't need your inverse index when you are playing a game. The index part of a codex needs to get done quickly so it can get sent to playtesters to iron out rules writing and points costs and it needs to be as light as possible so it is portable. The inverse index part of a codex needs to look amazing and needs a lot of space to feature all the units, subfactions and history of a faction, there is absolutely no need to rush the inverse index except because it is bundled with the index part of a codex and "oh damn, this faction is terrible, we need to update the rules ASAP to help the faction out". Splitting the inverse index and the index apart just makes sense.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
I do agree with the earlier sentiments. I do agree that in an ideal world there would be a slim rules only, paper-back codex at c. $30 and a fluff + hobby stuff + rules in the $50-60 range. But, I have to wonder about the cost of manufacturing the codices as they exist. Every page is covered in artwork, watermarks, dense crowding of images, etc. I don't see how they could split the sales into a slim and full codex without losing money, knowing full well that the majority of people would probably just buy the slim version.

By not having rules in the expensive codex you remove the idea that it is a premium version of the other product and urge people to buy both products rather than one, so people buy (codex + index) instead of (codex + campaign). Indexes don't need dense crowding of images or artwork, form over function on that one, costs can be cut until the only expense left is the developers changing rules and adding rules for new units. Depending on how expansive the faction is the index can be combined with other lesser indexes to make life easier on soup players and to further cut costs.

Voss wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
What's funny is the RRP of the 'dexes went up £5 despite trimming the lore.

Some of that cost increase may just be a change in printer. They're passing on the extra expense of a UK rather than a Chinese printing house. Unfortunately Western print operations tend to cost more, even accounting for the cost of shipping from China. At least, before 2020, anyway.

It may also be an upcharge for the crusade rules, which in theory take more design hours and QA time than re-writing the fluff sections slightly for the Nth time.

Also you do get free digital codex.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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?

It's classic GW defense tactics. Make the players do the work so you don't have to and then praise said players and make them feel special!

You do realize that we wargamers have been making up our own campaigns regardless of game system, company, actual historical facts (in regards to historical games), and the existence/non-existence of official campaign systems, right?
It's got nothing to do with GW.

I don't think 9th edition is a good investment in terms of Codexes. Better to have some other minis.
The life shelf of Codex dropped considerably compared with older edition (albeit, with a more proactive approach from GW), but before the Covid situation is entirely resolved there are no real game soon.... So the Codexes will have an even shorter life.

I felt really bad for my Dark Angel 8th book because I played very little with it (and I haven't even buy it since it was a present). And for the last three year I played almost weekly.
The continuos releases make almost impossible to know what to expect from opponent, and it has been a game of catching rules rather than a Wargame. And now it's the same with an impaired and mutilated scene.

As long as Covid hits, they should have kept the Indexes, use this strange time as playtest buffer and release a properly tested and long lasting edition thereafter.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I totally agree. We used to get an entire page of background and artwork for each unit. Now we get maybe a paragraph outlining what the unit does.

I was also a bit surprised to open my Blood Angels codex and see an entire two page spread had been dedicated to quite explicitly advertising the Combat Patrol box.

The codexes are becoming more and more like White Dwarves

Very expensive White Dwarves

It's not really a new thing, even in the old old days they'd have pages advising what to buy for first 500 points of an army.

That said, they were paperback, black and white and £10 back then which I'd happily go back to!

ccs wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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?

It's classic GW defense tactics. Make the players do the work so you don't have to and then praise said players and make them feel special!

You do realize that we wargamers have been making up our own campaigns regardless of game system, company, actual historical facts (in regards to historical games), and the existence/non-existence of official campaign systems, right?
It's got nothing to do with GW.

That's rather my point, though it's getting lost in the thread.

Real narrative players have been kicking ass and taking names in the narrative scene long before Crusade existed, and long after it dies as a system. That's half my point.

The second half is that Crusade isn't actually Narrative. At all.

If you took Skyrim, left in the leveling system (different trees to select from, perk points, skills, etc), but took out the World (tamriel), the Storyline (Alduin Worldeater) and the Secondary Plots (The Skyrim Civil War), you'd basically have crusade.

Yes, there's some elements of the missions that are somewhat narrative, but to use the Skyrim comparison again, the Crusade missions are like if Skyrim consisted exclusively of procedurally generated dungeons in which you could pick three secondary missions to complete (kill the necromancer, release the prisoners, secure the food supplies) in addition to the primary mission (find the macguffin). There's no information provided on how to string these dungeons together or what they mean or even what world they're in. They just exist in an empty void.

Yes, yes, when you complete the Dungeon your character (whose nature is completely irrelevant) gets to level up to Level 25 and choose some perk or another... but that's not narrative. That's just progression. Playing procedurally generated Crusade missions so you can earn Crusade XP and RP so you can progress in leveling up your units and your roster isn't even really the same thing as narrative.

The life shelf of Codex dropped considerably compared with older edition

I mean, it sort of depends which edition you're comparing it to. Lifespan has gone UP since 6th/7th. Especially 7th. Who's to say 9th isn't around for a little longer? I think it's safe to say 8th was just a very large public beta, so it's possible 9th runs longer than the what? 3 year span of 8th?

Recent history makes 3 years what they expect before getting another start of fiscal year edition bump.
AoS 1-2: 3 years
7th-8th: 3 years
8th-9th: 3 years

Only 6th and it's sad 2 years has deviated from the 3 year cycle.

I'm expecting AoS 3.0 this year (probably with an accelerated BR release to keep it on track if the Plague keeps plaguing)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

ccs wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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?

It's classic GW defense tactics. Make the players do the work so you don't have to and then praise said players and make them feel special!

You do realize that we wargamers have been making up our own campaigns regardless of game system, company, actual historical facts (in regards to historical games), and the existence/non-existence of official campaign systems, right?
It's got nothing to do with GW.

That's rather my point, though it's getting lost in the thread.

Real narrative players have been kicking ass and taking names in the narrative scene long before Crusade existed, and long after it dies as a system. That's half my point.

The second half is that Crusade isn't actually Narrative. At all.

If you took Skyrim, left in the leveling system (different trees to select from, perk points, skills, etc), but took out the World (tamriel), the Storyline (Alduin Worldeater) and the Secondary Plots (The Skyrim Civil War), you'd basically have crusade.

Yes, there's some elements of the missions that are somewhat narrative, but to use the Skyrim comparison again, the Crusade missions are like if Skyrim consisted exclusively of procedurally generated dungeons in which you could pick three secondary missions to complete (kill the necromancer, release the prisoners, secure the food supplies) in addition to the primary mission (find the macguffin). There's no information provided on how to string these dungeons together or what they mean or even what world they're in. They just exist in an empty void.

Yes, yes, when you complete the Dungeon your character (whose nature is completely irrelevant) gets to level up to Level 25 and choose some perk or another... but that's not narrative. That's just progression. Playing procedurally generated Crusade missions so you can earn Crusade XP and RP so you can progress in leveling up your units and your roster isn't even really the same thing as narrative.

The first point, that we've been doing it forever on our own, is certainly somewhat true, and I'm beginning to see what you're getting at with the second point. I'll try to keep it brief:

Yes, as narrative players, we always created worlds, our own named characters, our own missions, etc. But since there was no progression system, none of it made any difference in subsequent games, unless you found people who were willing to accept any of the house rules that you had to create in order to make that happen. Now the progression system exists, you can still create the worlds, named characters and missions, but because they can actually get skills, equipment and traits as a result of those battles that are official and have an impact on subsequent games, we can do what we've always done AND we can take it as far as we always wanted to but couldn't.

To the second point: you strike me as the kind of guy who, if you were playing D&D, you would insist on playing in Forgotten Realms, or Greyhawk, or Darksun or Eberron because for you, the setting is the game. And without the setting, it's not a game to you, just a progression system.

What you fail to understand is that while I'll play those campaigns if the group wants to and enjoy myself doing it, when I RUN the game, I prefer to make up my own campaign world. My players tend to enjoy that too, because the game that we play ends up being something that they aren't going to play around everyone else's table; it is a unique experience. Now my players might not like it as much if I had to invent all of the rules- the progression system as you call it- because that's where power dynamic rears its ugly. The game is no less a game because I choose to do that. It's no less than D&D. It doesn't become merely a progression system when you remove the campaign world. In fact, I would argue that having multiple campaign worlds to choose from, in addition to the option of inventing your own, is better than having an game that is locked one way or the other.

And that's exactly what Crusade is. Wanna play? Make up the worlds and star systems where the game takes place, like narrative players always have and use these cool new rules to flesh out out. Not sure how to do that, or just want someone else to do the heavy lifting?

Play in Pariah Nexus. Or the Charadon Crusades, or Argovon.

But don't say it's not a narrative game because it gives you the choice. The choice makes it a better narrative game, not worse.

To use your own example of Skyrim- if you ripped out all the world specific content, you claim that makes it empty and reduces it to nothing but a progression system, but I say it would empower you to sub in content from any other sources, or invent your own. Then Skyrim would be as versatile a system as D&D. Or Crusade. But because it's locked behind a specific world and a specific time, if you don't want to play in that world or that time, it's useless.

The Skyrim-without-the-world comparison seems particularly wrong because the world is... 40k? Right? Or is the Crusade system sold without setting context? I may be confused on what it is but I'm pretty sure Crusade has a world, much like Skyrim has a world.

PenitentJake wrote:
What you fail to understand is that while I'll play those campaigns if the group wants to and enjoy myself doing it, when I RUN the game, I prefer to make up my own campaign world. My players tend to enjoy that too, because the game that we play ends up being something that they aren't going to play around everyone else's table; it is a unique experience. Now my players might not like it as much if I had to invent all of the rules- the progression system as you call it- because that's where power dynamic rears its ugly. The game is no less a game because I choose to do that. It's no less than D&D. It doesn't become merely a progression system when you remove the campaign world. In fact, I would argue that having multiple campaign worlds to choose from, in addition to the option of inventing your own, is better than having an game that is locked one way or the other.

This 100%.

Just curious Unit1126PLL, what is your opinion on books like this?
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Crusade-Beyond-The-Veil-Mission-Pack-EN-2020