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.

My main gripe with the narrative campaigns up to and including the PA was that their missions were either horribly narrow or just bad. For example for one missions you needed Magnus, TS, some Grey Knights and Dark Angels, or the mission won't work. Missions which weren't as narrow were just regular missions with a hand full of special rules slapped on, usually horribly balanced and untested and therefore all but a few gems were horribly unfun to play.

Rihgu wrote:
If we're still using the Dungeons and Dragons analogy, Crusade offers the exact same progression and structure as DnD does.

RPGs are collaborative storytelling. The reason a DM exists is to manage the world around the players to help the storyline progress according to a narrative arc.

What I was hoping for with Crusade was essentially a DMG. A narrative system (complete with rules!) that could help define the setting. 40k is too broad to be a setting without further narrowing, so questions like:

1) How do we build the planet are we on, and determine its attributes?
2) How will its attributes affect gameplay (e.g. a high-gravity desert world will have the table and terrain setup and rules work differently from a large but mostly hollow space station)
3) What are the orbital conditions that make this into a ground fight instead of a space fight; conversely, what rules are there for orbital control and what rules "on the ground" can offset this advantage?
4) What sorts of reasons may certain armies collide? Why would CWE fight Harlequins? If armies fighting for the same faction collide, such as Space Marines slaughtering Imperial Guard, what would be the reaction of the superior authorities (i.e. inquisition, Segmentum Command, etc) and how do we make sure that these narrative actions have narrative consequences?
5) What are the rules for different sizes of conflict? Does the deployment of an entire company of Space Marines or Imperial Guard superheavy tanks have any escalatory consequences (and therefore narrative consequences) for the players?

That's the type of thing I mean. I want the choices the players make to have narrative consequences. The critical difference with DND is that the DM exists, and the world is "theirs". But in 40k, there is no DM, and Crusade does not require or even suggest one. 40k as a setting, the image of what would happen, exists within GW's head.

A better example might be the FFG RPGs. There were penalties (the Corruption and Malignancies) system for players who willingly consorted with Chaos. There were recommended narrative threads for acolytes who were outcast because they killed loyal Imperial citizens or unnecessarily risked Imperial assets. There were specific rules surrounding the Writs of Trade that Rogue Traders had, distinctly allowing them (or not!) to include Xenos crewmembers.

Currently, I might play Crusade on Planet Bowling Ball with a green mat and chest-high hedges all over it one week, and then play the same army (with whatever progression it made) in an ultradense urban environment with no more than 4" between terrain pieces next week. There's no guidelines whatsoever to string those encounters together or to make sense of them.

Of course, I could make all of it up myself, but I never needed Crusade to do that in the first place, which means that Crusade isn't helping me be narrative at all.

 Jidmah wrote:
My main gripe with the narrative campaigns up to and including the PA was that their missions were either horribly narrow or just bad. For example for one missions you needed Magnus, TS, some Grey Knights and Dark Angels, or the mission won't work. Missions which weren't as narrow were just regular missions with a hand full of special rules slapped on, usually horribly balanced and untested and therefore all but a few gems were horribly unfun to play.

How you you find the middle ground between these two extremes, if you were tasked with developing this sort of scenario?

My favourite army book/Codex by GW from a fluff perspective was the 6th Edition Dwarf army book (the first one, not the revised one that was released later in that edition).

The fluff for each unit was written as from the perspective of an old Hammerer in a tavern telling everyone about each one whilst grumbling about his tobacco and ale. It was great.

The Dark Elf 6th edition book was also pretty great. The history section was written as though by a Dark Elf, rather than from an all-seeing detached narrator perspective, so you really got an insight into how the Dark Elves regarded their society and history, as well as the other races.

Nowadays what fluff and lore you get (which isn't explicitly a short one/two page story piece, if they still do them?) is typically less and written very blandly. None of it really has any individual flavour that makes it feel like you are being given a view of how this army/species/etc. views the world around them and themselves.

Voss wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I agree.
If im going to be charged £30+ ish for a codex which will have its rules redundant within 6 moths I dont mind paying abit more and have a hefty bigger book full of art and fluff. I dotn even care if its a C&P of my 8th ed codex..

Good for you, but what about all the people that only buy the book for the rules. You are making them pay more for a book, with stuff they don't want and will neve need.

And while you can enjoy downloaded books with lore at home, it is a lot harder to waltz in to a store with printed out rules and absolutly no one is going to believe that the print out comes from a print out of the GW app, but you just forgot to bring your phone with you. But it is of course totaly legit, and you of course bought the rules set in another store, that is why the store owner doesn't remember you ever buying it.

Why bother buying a book only for the rules, if said rules will be reduntant following FAQ/CA/ Pts adjustment in +/- 6 months? That's just throwing money away..
The app is the answer IMO they need to make that a living rules system and keep codexes for fluff and art.

I'm entirely unclear as to why an app is 'the answer.' Other folks have done 'living rules systems' without an app. Heck, _GW_ did 'living rules' for Epic and BB without an app (before they killed them off).

Then you get to the issue that living rules aren't something that GW has demonstrated any interest in. Its pretty antithetical to their sales model. So the answer to something they don't even want doesn't seem at all useful.

And, of course, I'm entirely unclear on how a sub fee isn't throwing money away? On top of the book you need to buy to get the code to get access all the app features for your army? That seems like throwing more money away. Or rather throwing money away to set more money on fire.

Because paper rules by GW dont work because they feth up and change everything mid edition every time..
If you only wnat the rules makes sense to have the app where it updates pts and faq everything as and when. the codex just sits there being incorrect.. I dont get why people want to pay for GW's paper rules... IMO might as well get pictures, art and fluff if thats the only option..

That addresses nothing I asked.

Also, errata doesn't make anything unusable, otherwise the entire publishing industry has been non-functional since its inception.

The point I was trying to make is that paying money for paper rules and rules only I.e. no fluff and art, seems a much bigger waste of money then an app sub.
Currently, the app sub is £24 a year.. If that gives you access to all the datasheet rules, I think that's much better then putting down £30 for a book that will have a lot of its rules invalidated/changed within 6 months. Pts, costs, rules interaction etc. Yes the FAQ are free, but I for one would rather have it all in one place so I done do a goof or cheat by accident because I didn't realize/remember somethings been FAQ'd... Trying to remember all the faqs and erratas not just for your army but for your opponent's army is not appealing..

Just to be clear. Im all in the physical book camp. I love books. But GW is simply incapable of making coherent written rules it prints in it books..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Because paper rules by GW dont work because they feth up and change everything mid edition every time..
If you only wnat the rules makes sense to have the app where it updates pts and faq everything as and when. the codex just sits there being incorrect.. I dont get why people want to pay for GW's paper rules... IMO might as well get pictures, art and fluff if thats the only option..

1) I for one don't WANT my rules to auto-update.
Sure, I want access to whatever the errata is. Throw it on the site & I'll print it out. But I want the people I play with & I to be in control of when it's applied. If GW comes out with some change we don't agree with? We can decide xyz will not apply, do it according to codex/rule book. That becomes alot harder if things just auto-change.

2) I spend enough time looking at a screen. I don't do that come game time.

3) The older I get, the harder it's becoming to read stuff on tablets & phone screens. You'll get there too one day.

4) I'm not paying GW a monthly fee to play their games.

Nothing is stopping you deciding the most current errata/FAQ does not apply. How is that different than deciding current errata / FAQ doesnt apply now? Just because you dont print it? It still exists...

So you'd rather pay GW a bigger annual fee for a codex+supplaments which does not contain correct rules/pts?

Rihgu wrote:
There is not a single line in the PHB, DMG, or MM explaining where your campaign takes you or why your players are in a dungeon or fighting a monster.

There's plenty in the PHB, DMG, and MM covering topics besides 'combat' and 'leveling up'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, did nobody here read the old campaigns they used to have in White Dwarf? I remember a really expansive one where the participants were fighting over control of a city, using the then-new Cityfight rules. They had a map of the city, divided into territories. Territories had special rules, either for the battles fought within them or for the player who controlled them. Each faction had their own goals, and the game used a simple system for players to attack and conquer other territories. When a player attacked another territory, they played a game against the player who owned it.

I'm not asking for the map they used or the background they made up. Anyone who's run a D&D campaign can come up with their own background and make a map for it.

I'm asking for the rules for what the territories do, how players attack and defend them, and what the ultimate victory conditions are for the campaign.

I'll probably be homebrewing this because it really doesn't have to be all that complicated. But I have to homebrew it, because that very basic campaign framework isn't in the Crusade rules. That's the point.

I'm asking for the rules for what the territories do, how players attack and defend them, and what the ultimate victory conditions are for the campaign.

I guess what you're looking for is the Flashpoint stuff from the White Dwarfs.
Argovon and now/upcoming Charadon.

They give you rules for Mass Campaigns rather than Map Campaigns, but it's still a Campaign structure with a form of finality and even has special rules for different areas to fight in.

I don't know how much this satisfies yours or Unit's desires (must they provide structure for map campaigns for it to be a real campaign system?) but it does seem to at a surface level fulfill the needs.

Why not make use of the Theaters of War from PA?

I finally found the Tombworld one and it's awesome!
There's tons of stuff provided that can help give more background and show the effects of the location of the battle

I think a part of it is the meta-campaign effects of the location of the battle, which would be specific to Map Campaigns.

Battlefield effects alone wouldn't 100% fulfill what I think is being talked about.

 catbarf wrote:


I'm asking for the rules for what the territories do, how players attack and defend them, and what the ultimate victory conditions are for the campaign.

Urban Conquest from 8th has some of this- that box had a big price tag, but if you could find just the book, it would go for cheap. Even there though, they didn't do territories as well as Necromunda; I haven't played Newcromunda yet, so I'm not sure if its territory system is as good as the classic.

Urban Conquest gives you 4 special territories; it gives maps, missions and strats that relate to these four territories. The other 21 territories in the city grid are kind of underdeveloped.

The Flashpoint suggestions weren't bad either- you'll find some good stuff in there... But again, not full-on functioning territory rules. Beyond the Veil Crusade Pack has some great stuff in, but pretty specific to that setting and those factions (very Cron-centric). If I remember correctly, there is supposed to to be a Charadon Hardback Campaign book (like Vigilus) as well as a Charadon Crusade mission pack on the way.

I was underwhelmed by the first installment of Flashpoint Charadon in last month's Dwarf, so I'm hoping the next article in that series raises the bar.

Anyone remember the old hex-tile campaign system GW built? I never bought in because the cost of the hex tiles seemed odd to me at the time, but I bet the book had some good stuff in it.

I think the conversation is specifically regarding 9th and whether Crusade offers sufficient narrative rules. In that sense, 8th edition's Urban Conquest book (as well as the Vigilus series which offered some pretty nice campaign rules) are irrelevant.

That said, Urban Conquest did look like an interesting system and my friend and I bought it at a very bad time. Never got a chance to play it (yet).

Sad to hear about the Charadon flashpoint, too. Maybe the second and third installments will bring it back!

 Blndmage wrote:
Why not make use of the Theaters of War from PA?

I finally found the Tombworld one and it's awesome!
There's tons of stuff provided that can help give more background and show the effects of the location of the battle

I hated the Tombworld one, it was a big part of why I only loaned the campaign book and browsed it instead of buying it. I think having something like it is neat but it needed another round of brainstorming and playtesting.

Fade Into the Dark, makes sense if it is underground, I guess you would use a different Theatre above ground? Already the narratives that this theatre fits has been cut in half.

Null-field Matrix completely destroys psykers, forget anyone using multiple ever agreeing to play these silly rules. Should have been a Stratagem instead. On top of it being overpowered it makes no sense, Necrons shut down psykers, they don't make them more likely to explode.

Why would Canoptek Wardens from the battlefield twist attack the Necrons defending the Tomb World? And look, another effect that messes with psykers, we get it you've never playtested this against someone with psykers to see if it is fun to play Eldar vs Necrons with these rules which they should have been ideal for if the writer had cared.

Apparently, it's extra important that we know that mysterious objective markers cannot be re-rolled because it's been pasted twice from the battlefield twists section. The mysterious objectives are actually all pretty cool though.

The terrain rule brings in the last effect in the theatre that messes with psykers, or does it? Actually, it can save the psyker from killing themselves, that's kind of amazing and no doubt unintentional. Again we see Canoptek servants attacking what could be their masters, stuuupid. Using rad-bursts to intercept ballistics doesn't sound like Necron technology.

Then there is a Stratagem that lets you teleport units more than 1" away from enemy models, it seems evident that despite this whole campaign book focusing on the events on a tomb world the associated theatre of war was never tested.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm asking for the rules for what the territories do, how players attack and defend them, and what the ultimate victory conditions are for the campaign.

Wouldn't that be unique to the campaign itself?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
My main gripe with the narrative campaigns up to and including the PA was that their missions were either horribly narrow or just bad. For example for one missions you needed Magnus, TS, some Grey Knights and Dark Angels, or the mission won't work. Missions which weren't as narrow were just regular missions with a hand full of special rules slapped on, usually horribly balanced and untested and therefore all but a few gems were horribly unfun to play.

How you you find the middle ground between these two extremes, if you were tasked with developing this sort of scenario?

When I prepare narrative games without knowing who will play them, my requirements to the armies are much broader, for example by not requiring Magnus for the big ritual, but instead just a psyker interested in performing a big ritual, or have fortifications up to a certain PL to defend a choke point or just a LoW or other large model. I also have some back-up plan for factions or players who can't fulfill those requirements, for example if a necron player is supposed to do the ritual, a cryptec will set up and calibrate a portal to their tombworld instead.
You can also utilize models everyone has, for example you can always borrow some cultists, guardsmen or someone's AoS warband to be civilians, some admech or industrial looking terrain to be a shield generators or sources of power, a bunch of rhinos/chimeras/trukks/etc for a convoy, or just a cool character model as a VIP (if everything fails,Cypher always has a reason to be anywhere in the galaxy )

As for making missions more interesting, less is usually more. GW often tries messing with deployment zones, dice tables for weather, complex environmental effects or odd limitations for what you can or cannot bring. None of that has huge impact on a game that's essentially just capturing objectives/amassing kill points.
One option is to introduce a game-changing gimmick to a regular game - a siege represented by having one player build his fortress in any way they likes and giving the attacker a way to blow up terrain (for example by letting the attacker place objective markers which explode when scored), having an assassinate mission is much more interesting if the opponent has no clue what your objective is at all or if both players deploy just deploy poker chips with numbers with neither knowing what unit will go where. The open war card deck also is a great source for these kind of things.
The other option is to change the game completely, which is much more difficult to do and takes a lot of testing - my favorite is the ork armageddon race, where both players deploy along a start line and then all models and terrain moves 12" to the left at the beginning of every battle round. Everything that touches the table edge is destroyed, terrain that drops off the table is added back the right side. At the end of the game, the model furthest du the right wins the race and the game.

Last, but not least, these missions still need play testing. I remember more than one official narrative mission where the mission stratagems could be comboed with units or other stratagems to a devastating effect, leaving one player completely unable to win the scenario, where in others the developers clearly overlooked some plays which allowed one side or the other to easily win the whole scenario with little to no effort.

It's really not that different from creating a scenario for a D&D or similar games. If your scenario doesn't work unless the group brings a cleric, a paladin and a drow rogue, it's not a great scenario.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'm asking for the rules for what the territories do, how players attack and defend them, and what the ultimate victory conditions are for the campaign.

Wouldn't that be unique to the campaign itself?

Sure, but including some with a basic campaign would give people something to start with.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
My favourite army book/Codex by GW from a fluff perspective was the 6th Edition Dwarf army book (the first one, not the revised one that was released later in that edition).

The fluff for each unit was written as from the perspective of an old Hammerer in a tavern telling everyone about each one whilst grumbling about his tobacco and ale. It was great.

The Dark Elf 6th edition book was also pretty great. The history section was written as though by a Dark Elf, rather than from an all-seeing detached narrator perspective, so you really got an insight into how the Dark Elves regarded their society and history, as well as the other races.

Nowadays what fluff and lore you get (which isn't explicitly a short one/two page story piece, if they still do them?) is typically less and written very blandly. None of it really has any individual flavour that makes it feel like you are being given a view of how this army/species/etc. views the world around them and themselves.

This same reason is why I love the 3rd edition Necron codex. It was told from the point of view of the Imperium, in most cases the Mechanicus

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I'm asking for the rules for what the territories do, how players attack and defend them, and what the ultimate victory conditions are for the campaign.

Wouldn't that be unique to the campaign itself?

Again, look to D&D. If the Dungeon Master's Guide were just a pamphlet that said 'sorry, everything besides combat and progression will be unique to your campaign, do it yourself', it wouldn't be very useful.

Brainstorming some generic territory points of interest:
-Ammo dump
-Communications hub
-Defensible position
-Logistical nexus
-Spaceport
-Food storage
-Population center
-Shrine
-Archaeotech
-Anti-air emplacement

Right off the bat that's ten 'territory types' that could have defined rules and benefits for how they impact a campaign, providing incentive and consequences for holding territory. Add rules for how players attack and defend them and we're nearly there.

Now, to contextualize them to a particular theater, how about some environmental types:
-Tundra
-Desert
-Airless
-Low gravity
-Arboreal
-Plains
-Urban

Give those some universal rules for how they affect battles, and guidance for how terrain should be set up within a battle to match the corresponding environment.

We now have:
-A system for fighting battles and capturing territory.
-A set of territory types with which to populate our battlespace.
-A set of environments to define that battlespace as a particular theater.

Throw in some victory conditions and you have all the tools you need to build out a campaign. Again, I'm not looking for a sourcebook to tell me exactly what the battle is and who's involved and give me a pretty map, just the tools to provide the when, where, and why to the battles.

Taking and holding territory only applies to Map Campaigns, of which none have been released for 40k 9e... yet. Considering Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, and AoS (of games that I've read the rules for, at least) all have them, I'm sure they're to come eventually.

What GW has provided is structure for a Mass Campaign, one where taking and holding territory isn't relevant and is more about having a Mass number of players (territory control would be unruly if you have 12+ people in the campaign, unless you're truly dedicated).

They have also provided battlefield rules exactly as you've suggested, in the Charadon and Argovon flashpoints.

So we have 2 out of 3 of your points (4 out of 4, if you include victory conditions), and we're only missing the 1 because that specific sort of campaign hasn't been given support yet.

You don't have to be playing a map campaign to make the narrative relevant.

If I and my players are playing on a high-gravity desert world, I want them to have a set of rules they can use for every game (e.g. reduce weapon ranges by 6", jump and jet pack infantry have to take Dangerous Terrain or whatever the 8e equivalent is, use deserty terrain) that is different than the rules we might use if we're fighting on an asteroid or space station (models should be helmeted unless the battle is inside, in which case no vehicles; all weapons have Rending, when inside all BLAST weapons have reroll wounds, etc).

Perhaps the planet has different climes but is still high-gravity or has a thick atmosphere (or no atmosphere) or something. I mean the attributes of our shared battlespace should be shared...

Also, orbital conditions. Why doesn't anyone get orbital support (except for non-crusade related stratagems)? Should someone? If they do, how do you determine who? And how do you offset it in a balanced way in ground battles? If not, then why not? What narrative reason is there for an absence of orbital assets by all people provi-

you know what I gave lots of examples of what might be useful in my earlier post and I'm just repeating them. There's lots of stuff Crusade doesn't provide that would be great for narrative play.Progression is not the same thing as narrative and nor are randomly generated missions.

You don't have to be playing a map campaign to make the narrative relevant.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or trying to make a point against me (ahh, the internet), but this is what I've been hinting at if not outright stating it. The reason Crusade doesn't have rules for a Map Campaign is that GW has not yet published a Map Campaign for the Crusade system. That does not mean Crusade is not a narrative system, it just means it doesn't have a Map Campaign.

Okay, and Crusade provides, in various sources, rules for a variety of terrains/worlds/climates. Omission of orbital conditions is a strange one, but not a new omission for GW to make? Or are we reverting back to the "melee in the far future doesn't even make sense! Why aren't they just exterminatusing every battle?" thing from 2006?

(as a side note, Flashpoint Argovon lets you collect Xenotech points and then spend those to buy a stratagem called Orbital Targetting, which lets you target an enemy unit from Orbit!)

Rihgu wrote:

You don't have to be playing a map campaign to make the narrative relevant.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or trying to make a point against me (ahh, the internet), but this is what I've been hinting at if not outright stating it. The reason Crusade doesn't have rules for a Map Campaign is that GW has not yet published a Map Campaign for the Crusade system. That does not mean Crusade is not a narrative system, it just means it doesn't have a Map Campaign.

Okay, and Crusade provides, in various sources, rules for a variety of terrains/worlds/climates. Omission of orbital conditions is a strange one, but not a new omission for GW to make? Or are we reverting back to the "melee in the far future doesn't even make sense! Why aren't they just exterminatusing every battle?" thing from 2006?

(as a side note, Flashpoint Argovon lets you collect Xenotech points and then spend those to buy a stratagem called Orbital Targetting, which lets you target an enemy unit from Orbit!)

I mean like, I gave a whole list of things I always consider when designing my own narrative campaign. I get exactly ZERO help from Crusade for any of those. As a DMG, Crusade throws in the towel. It's like if DND published only the PHB and nothing else (and took a couple chapters out of the PHB as well, like what to do outside of combat and how social interactions work).

I haven't actually seen any Crusade rules for different terrain or worlds or climates. The Veil book has some, kinda, but they're not really generic enough to be helpful. I still have to design my own. It's like skipping over the DMG and publishing splatbooks straightaway.

Can you tell me why two people playing pickup games of Crusade are being more narrative than two people playing pickup games of regular Eternal War without referencing anything outside the rules?

Can you tell me why two people playing pickup games of Crusade are being more narrative than two people playing pickup games of regular Eternal War without referencing anything outside the rules?

Not without knowing the players, their intents, etc.

One can play Eternal War with narrative just like one can play Crusade without narrative.

I could propose that the 2 players who willfully chose to play the Narrative Play of the Three Ways to Play are generally more likely going to be more narrative than 2 players who willfully chose to not play the Narrative Play of the Three Ways to Play, but that's just speculation.

As a DMG, Crusade throws in the towel.

What has been published so far is the PHB + "campaign setting guides", in that it entirely gives rules and options for players. So it makes sense that it has not succeeded at being a DMG.

As of yet, there is no content for Crusade that requires, suggests, or implies a Game Master and is set up in such a way that one can play their Crusade games without even a consistent group of players. Will we see such content in the future? Maybe! Especially if there is a demand for it (or a demand made known to GW, more importantly).

Rihgu wrote:
One can play Eternal War with narrative just like one can play Crusade without narrative.

And right there is my argument.

Narrative players don't need Crusade because Eternal War was just fine.

Non-narrative players don't need Crusade because it doesn't make them any more narrative than they were already.

Crusade is not a narrative system simply because narrative is not part of the requirement to play it.

Then there exists zero (0) narrative systems.

Rihgu wrote:
Then there exists zero (0) narrative systems.

I have never heard of DND being played in a way other than narratively - even in competitive DND, the players within a party have to craft a story to progress in the tournament.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
Then there exists zero (0) narrative systems.

I have never heard of DND being played in a way other than narratively - even in competitive DND, the players within a party have to craft a story to progress in the tournament.

I honestly would never have foreseen this conversation swinging this way. I am unsure how to proceed when the argument is that "rolling dice to kill orcs" is inherently more narrative than "rolling dice to kill orks".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
One can play Eternal War with narrative just like one can play Crusade without narrative.

And right there is my argument.

Narrative players don't need Crusade because Eternal War was just fine.

Non-narrative players don't need Crusade because it doesn't make them any more narrative than they were already.

Crusade is not a narrative system simply because narrative is not part of the requirement to play it.

I was with you up until this. I almost quoted your other post- where you were talking about low gravity and such. My response would have been that all of those considerations are part of the Theatres of War stuff; we don't have many 9th ed ones yet, but all the old 8th ed ones are still mostly valid.

But here's the thing: I get what you guys are saying- you want Crusade to give more in-battle effects. You want Crusade to provide tools for modifying missions based on the narrative. You want it to include various systems that can be used to create campaign structures. I too think all of these things would be great additions to crusade, and frankly, they are probably on the way.

Where we differ is that because Crusade doesn't have those things, you think it isn't a narrative system. And you're wrong.

A narrative is a series of events related by cause and effect- that's the basic definition of the word. You can also unpack Freytag's Pyramid ( https://writers.com/freytags-pyramid ), and evoke the beginning/ middle/ end, the inciting incident, the denouement, etc.

Getting wounded in one battle, crossing the Rubicon to heal the grievous wounds, and returning to lead your forces once more is a narrative, by all definitions of the word. Crusade lets me do this. Crusade is a narrative system. Period.

You want narrative IN EACH GAME. Great; I think a system attempting to do that has the potential to be too restrictive, and may ultimately do more harm than good. I'd certainly take a look at these rules, and I would use the ones that fit what our group was trying to achieve.

I'll be the first to admit Crusade is imperfect at providing narrative IN EACH GAME.

Where Crusade excels CREATING A NARRATIVE FROM A SERIES OF GAMES. And that is what makes it a narrative system. The fact that it doesn't do as much as you want it to FOR EACH game doesn't make it any less a narrative game. The difference is merely one of scale.

To Rihgu: I would argue that it is only possible to play Crusade without Narrative if you stop playing after the first game. As soon as any effect earned as a result of one game has an effect on another game, there's a series of events related by cause and effect, and therefore there is a narrative. Your personal definition of narrative may require more. But the literal definition of narrative does not.

Rihgu wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
Then there exists zero (0) narrative systems.

I have never heard of DND being played in a way other than narratively - even in competitive DND, the players within a party have to craft a story to progress in the tournament.

I honestly would never have foreseen this conversation swinging this way. I am unsure how to proceed when the argument is that "rolling dice to kill orcs" is inherently more narrative than "rolling dice to kill orks".

Well, in DND and in some forms of RPG, you don't have to roll dice to kill orcs. You can talk your way out of it (which has rules), or you can sneak your way past (which has rules), or you can change the story arc through your actions that the orcs don't show up entirely (which is helped by the rules and the DM - Crusade gives you no tools to do this, DND has a whole section for the DM on narrative arcs and narrative consequences).

In Crusade, you can ... well, do none of those things really, except refuse the game.

And PenitentJake, what I want is for decisions in the narrative to affect the narrative itself. A Marine getting his leg blown off because he failed his saves and rolled on a random chart has 0 impact on the narrative. Crossing the Rubicon has 0 impact on the narrative - you could pay 2 RP to remove a captain from your roster and add a Primaris Captain to your roster. It doesn't mean anything more than you lost some upgrades (which you might've gained by some other random factor like playing a relic recovery mission or the like).

You can't choose to preemptively strike the enemy, taking a big risk early to have a better fight later. You can't choose to wait for orbital support, building up your army and defenses without fighting in some sort of "turtle" strategy and hoping you can win the ground battles if they enemy chooses to attack you. You can't have teammates in your games (without significant houesruling) so forces can't work together. There's no penalty for turning on your own faction. There's basically nothing out of "play random 40k battles, level up your dudes." Which, aside from the level up part, is basically just "play 40k". And the level up part is just progression with no further requirements or concerns.

Imagine the following rule:
"If an Imperium player fights another Imperium player, he replaces his Imperium Keyword in all cases with the Chaos keyword." Voila, a good rule. And that's important, because if your foe wants to bring an Ordo Hereticus inquisitor to deal with the new traitors? Well, his rules work now, whereas they wouldn't've before (since they only care about the Chaos keyword). That means the decision to attack a friendly target has a narrative impact. There is nothing like this whatsoever in Crusade, and there never will be, because fundamentally it's more concerned with progression than with actual narrative.

But imperials forces war on each other all the time, without there to be need of chaos intervention. There are marine chapters that hate each other. DA eliminate imperial forces that saw their secret on a regular basis. Ad Mecha war against each other and other faction, all the time. The conflicts are so common that the imperial law has rules regarding official duels and trails by combat, between members of the different adeptus.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
My favourite army book/Codex by GW from a fluff perspective was the 6th Edition Dwarf army book (the first one, not the revised one that was released later in that edition).

The fluff for each unit was written as from the perspective of an old Hammerer in a tavern telling everyone about each one whilst grumbling about his tobacco and ale. It was great.

The Dark Elf 6th edition book was also pretty great. The history section was written as though by a Dark Elf, rather than from an all-seeing detached narrator perspective, so you really got an insight into how the Dark Elves regarded their society and history, as well as the other races.

Nowadays what fluff and lore you get (which isn't explicitly a short one/two page story piece, if they still do them?) is typically less and written very blandly. None of it really has any individual flavour that makes it feel like you are being given a view of how this army/species/etc. views the world around them and themselves.

The old ogre kingdoms dex i have, was written out of the perspective off an ogre bull. Which was kinda funny, the regard for the hierarchy especially with all the quibs. Morale of the story, you'd either get eaten, or you had the wierdos of ogre society in front of you