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.

Galas wrote:So basically what I have understand here is that something only is narrative if theres a system to conect the games between them be it a map or some style of ladder campaing. And that theres a end or winner condition.

The fact that theres any narrative is secondary. Only the structure is needed. I understand the reasoning but I think people is falling in a No True Narrative system here to discredit Crusade.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I suppose what Catbarf and Unit are saying is that what Crusade lacks are those rules I invented for stuff like how to represent in your game the progresion of a planetary xenos invasion, how to make more DM-like narrative scenaros, etc... but I seriously believe a narrative campaing CANNOT work without someone acting as a DM. Theres no ruleset that can make a narrative campaing work with only rules. At best, it will end up as a risk-like tournament with army progression.

Which, to me at least, sounds like them attempting to blame an orange for not being an apple.

In other words, criticising something for not being something it never intended to be.

If your idea of a narrative campaign is loose enough that just being able to 'forge the narrative' while having no structure to connect the battles is sufficient, then surely you could have a narrative campaign with just the base rules and not use Crusade at all?

I'm just saying, it doesn't feel to me like adding an experience/reinforcement system onto the base game is the make-or-break distinction that turns an escalation league into a narrative campaign.

Yeah, Catbarf's point is mine too.

If just the idea of a narrative campaign is just 'play games, make up your own narrative' then Crusade is fine, but so are the base rules so here's my mantra:
Crusade is not required.

Progression alone is not enough for narrative; indeed, it doesn't have to be narrative at all. You can track RPs, XP, IPs, ZPs, BPs, really whatever progression metric you want, without there being any impact at all except a random unnamed Captain takes the next perk in the One-Handed skill line (except there aren't even skill lines either so he just picks or rolls an upgrade on a chart) or grabs a relic (like you can do in the base game, but DIFFERENTER!) or whatever.

That's how this whole tangent started: there isn't space in the codex for real narrative because they crammed in all this Crusade stuff. And since the Crusade stuff isn't any more narrative than the base rules, it's an overall reduction in the quality of the codex from a narrative perspective.

But why is Crusade not enough but a map with objetives is? Does each different system (A map one, a progression one, a scenarios one) add X amount of "narrative points" to a game and once you reach enough you become a proper narrative game or what?

Crusade is a tool for progresion. Is that enough by itself to be a narrative experience? No.
Is any other narrative tool, by itself, enough to make a narrative experience? Also, no.

Do you need ALL of them to have a narrative experience? No, not really.

If I don't use the economy system in my D&D campaings, it is less of a narrative experience? Not really.

Crusade tries to do something. And it does it pretty good. What Crusade does, is something many people want and use in their narrative experiences. It is the whole package? Nah, not really. But theres such a thing as "enough narrative"? As an ork would say, no. Theres never enough narrative, only the ammount of tools players want to use and feel they need.

Right, I never said Crusade wasn't a useful tool in a player's toolbox to build narrative. Just that it, itself, isn't narrative content. So reducing actual narrative content (stories that outline the character of an army, lore explaining the provenance of some new unit, whatever) in favor of Crusade content is a net loss, because Crusade doesn't offer anything that homebrew campaigns couldn't already do, but DOES take up pages that could inspire Forge the Narrative moments or give people great ideas for army narratives.

I agree that losing bestiaries is a great loss. My favourite part of any codex.

Double post... Ignore / Delete

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, Catbarf's point is mine too.

If just the idea of a narrative campaign is just 'play games, make up your own narrative' then Crusade is fine, but so are the base rules so here's my mantra:
Crusade is not required.

Progression alone is not enough for narrative; indeed, it doesn't have to be narrative at all. You can track RPs, XP, IPs, ZPs, BPs, really whatever progression metric you want, without there being any impact at all except a random unnamed Captain takes the next perk in the One-Handed skill line (except there aren't even skill lines either so he just picks or rolls an upgrade on a chart) or grabs a relic (like you can do in the base game, but DIFFERENTER!) or whatever.

That's how this whole tangent started: there isn't space in the codex for real narrative because they crammed in all this Crusade stuff. And since the Crusade stuff isn't any more narrative than the base rules, it's an overall reduction in the quality of the codex from a narrative perspective.

It isn't "Just Play Games"; it's do stuff in one game to learn a skill, get an item or be promoted, which then changes the rules that govern your behaviour and capabilities in future games; it is the changes to your capabilities that impact the story. In the base game, you can tell the same story, but since your capabilities don't change as a result of the story (ie. the thinks you did to learn the skill, find the equipment or earn the promotion), they have zero impact on the subsequent battles. Could you play a D&D adventure without D&D's progression system?

Look, Crusade content includes non-combat actions through Agendas (codex content) and non-combat interactions with different kinds of objectives (campaign mission pack content). The books tell you that you can choose your honours, relics, scars rather than roll for them. The way experience is earned and used in Crusade is far more narrative than D&D.

Seriously. Think about this. In D&D, you earn experience through both combat and non combat. Same with equipment in the form of treasure/ quest items or money. But you keep doing stuff, doing stuff, doing stuff and nothing changes. Then you hit a level threshold, and all the sudden, you get all kinds of upgrades all at the same time, and NONE of them are connected to the stuff you did to earn the experience that paid for the upgrade. For example, you could spend all of level 1 doing nothing but various strength challenges, roleplaying training sessions with the greatest strongmen in the land and eating nothing but protein, but when you hit level 2, you won't be able to raise your strength stat, because that's only allowed at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. And what's funny is that you can raise your strength at level four even if you've never performed a single strength challenge, never spoken to a strength trainer and haven't eaten anything but fatty food.

But I don't hear any whining that D&D isn't narrative.

In Crusade, I can have a unit perform 3 Investigation actions during battle, and fulfil an agenda, and if it takes me above a threshold, I don't get something as abstract as an arbitrary level that confers a number of rules changes that are absolutely unrelated to the experience. Instead, I choose a single upgrade and I am free to relate it specifically to the experience by which it was earned; in this example, I might say that after performing three distinct investigations during a battle, my unit got so good at maintaining combat readiness while performing non-combat actions that I can now fight and shoot while performing actions.

You say it's not narrative because it doesn't have maps and settings? Find me a map in the PH or DMG. I dare you to try.

You say it's not narrative because it doesn't have a campaign system (map based, ladder, tree, etc); again, find me one in the PH or DMG. There isn't one- you might play a single session game with pregenerated characters, a 5 game story arc, a classic 1-20 campaign, or play at organized events as part of a persistent world structure, or even an annual halloween game with persistent characters. None of these are defined in the PH or DMG, and you're not told which one to use.

You know, if Crusade had provided a campaign system in the BRB they would have alienated more players than they pleased. Think about it: campaigns in Crusade are map based... Now all the players who prefer ladder or tree campaigns are angry. Same is true of settings (in both time and space).

This is why all of that work is done by supplements, which you can choose to buy and use, or not. You can also choose to use only the pieces of each that fit the story you want to tell. This is by design.

Seriously. Want a campaign system for Crusade? Buy the Dwarf issues with the Argovon Flashpoint. Want specific theatres of war? There's one in Beyond the Veil (as well as a sector map naming all the key planets), at least one in each PA book and a whole chapter of them in Pariah. Want to know about the forces involved in the campaign in the Pariah Nexus and summaries of actions taken by specific faction at specific locations? You'll find that in the Argovon Flashpoint, and PA Pariah. Want specific missions for the Theatre of war? There are 24 of them in Beyond the Veil.

I like text based lore as much as the next guy, but when it's lacking, that's stuff I can make up because it doesn't unbalance the game. It's nice, but not necessary, because we all know how to make up a Chapter history. The progression system- that is the mile long list of things you can do to earn experience, and the list of things you can do with it once it's earned... That's the stuff we're less free to make up; sure we've all done house rules, but it's harder to get buy in from all the players when you're making up rules than it is when you're making up background. This is why Crusade gives us rules- it outlines many ways, both combat and non-combat, that you can earn experience points, requisition points and investigation points (Beyond the Veil), and it gives us faction specific ways we can spend it. Sagas for Spacewolves, Specialisms for Deathwatch, etc. And these things may be rules rather than text based fluff, but they define their factions just as much as text based fluff would.

Think of the Barbarian Rage ability in D&D. No one will deny that the ability to rage is a core feature of a barbarian's identity. But D&D doesn't tell you whether that rage represents past trauma that makes you fight harder, the anger of your totem or deity made manifest in you, or the voices of your ancestors driving you past normal limits- they give you the rule and you personalize the rule in accordance with your own notions of your character's identity.

Same with Crusade. It tells you the rules of how experience can be earned; maybe you choose a techpriest with a cybereye to perform the investigation battlefield action because you think it's fluffy- the rules don't tell you to do that, just like the D&D rules don't tell you what Barbarian rage looks, sounds or smells like. Crusade provides things you can do with that experience; you might get artificer armour, but choose to represent that on the table by giving the model a cyber arm and a cyber leg- the rationale being that when so much of your body is metal, an improved armour save would be a likely result. D&D is the same: you might choose to select the Mage Slayer feat, which is a collection of rules- but YOU are the one who figures out the fluff; maybe you had a dream that revealed to you that magic will be the downfall of the realms fo example.

I'm not saying Crusade can't be improved; it certainly can. Every codex, campaign book, flashpoint and mission pack improves it a little bit more. But it is ridiculous to claim that it's not a narrative system, when it clearly links games to each other via cause and effect through the agency of actions taken by units in battle which result in improvements to the capabilities of those units in subsequent games, creating a far more detailed story of the army's development than we've ever been able to do in the past.

And I'm also not saying I don't miss the force distribution maps and background pages that are no longer appearing in dexes. Doesn't hurt me, because I've been playing for three decades and I still have the other books from previous editions. But it will affect new players over time. Given the choice between that stuff and the Crusade content, I'm going to take the crusade content any day of the week, because it's the stuff that I'd have trouble getting through a group of players. Seriously- try it. Take your Spacewolf army to a store or a tournament, and then tell some crazy story like "Actually this army- though they are Spacewolves, leant their support to the Blood Angels during the Tyranid siege of Ashallon, so they've formally been recoginzied the Sanguinary priests of the Blood Angels as Battle Brothers." Your opponent is likely to say, "Cool. Game on!"

No try try to do the same thing when there are rules at stake: "Oh, specialisms can normally only be purchased by units, but this character has supported so many specialist squads in battle that he's become a master of the specialisms." And your opponent is likely to say "Show me the rule." And thanks to Crusade, you can.

So why the #%&* would anyone want to waste pages telling you how to do the first thing, which won't make a lick of difference to your opponent when they can spend those same pages telling you how to do the second, which will clearly have an impact upon all of your opponents in all of your games once the ability has been earned?

I agree with a lot of what people on the other side of the debate are saying. Yes, I think Crusade can do more, and it will. But as soon as you take that detailed analysis and deep discussion and reduce it to the soundbite of Crusade =/= Narrative, you have oversimplified your arguments so much that they are no longer true.

A progression system can be defined as all the things you can do to earn experience and all the things you can do with experience once it's earned. That is 60-90% of the rules content in any pen and paper RPG. In the case of Crusade, the percentage is higher, because all the army rules (RPG equivalent of Race/ Class and Background) is in the Codex, and is the same as matched play content.

Note- sorry about double post weirdness.

I really like the crusade system. One of the things I like about it, is you can play a crusade completely separate from anyone else. as long as you're playing crusade, you can play it as a pick-up game with others.

You'll always be playing the same PL size of game, and if one force has more upgrades, the other side just starts with more CP.

Never have to worry about one player running away with it, as there is a balancing factor to is.

I think the main thing people are missing is that instead of interesting plot hooks, narrative justification for a faction being (x), beastiaries, etc were ditched for quite possibly the lamest excuse for "narrative" content.

Progression for the sake of progression does not narrative make.

Yeah, because narrative gaming without any progression is totally awesome.

Remember that time when the Chapter of the Fluorescent Monks went on a crusade for 100 years and no one learned anything or suffered any scars, and they fought with the exact same wargear every single battle? Boy, what a story!

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, because narrative gaming without any progression is totally awesome.

Remember that time when the Chapter of the Fluorescent Monks went on a crusade for 100 years and no one learned anything or suffered any scars, and they fought with the exact same wargear every single battle? Boy, what a story!

Remember that time when the Chapter of the Flourescent Monks fought the entire Imperium for 100 years and learned everything there is to know and suffered every scar they could, yet they fought with the exact same people every single battle and no one ever died on either side? Oh, and they stayed Loyalists too throughout?

Boy, that totally fits in with the wider 40k Narrative!

Progression isn't better. It's just different.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, because narrative gaming without any progression is totally awesome.

Remember that time when the Chapter of the Fluorescent Monks went on a crusade for 100 years and no one learned anything or suffered any scars, and they fought with the exact same wargear every single battle? Boy, what a story!

I wouldn't count equipment swapping as "progression", and besides, you don't need any progression rules to do it.

Tbh, I'm narratively contented by just changing my list a bit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Remember that time when the Chapter of the Flourescent Monks fought the entire Imperium for 100 years and learned everything there is to know

not possible as written; units get 4 battle honours each. That's the cap. 4.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


and suffered every scar they could, yet they fought with the exact same people every single battle and no one ever died on either side?

unlikely as written, and if pursued will likely result in the affected unit changing forms (ie. crossing the rubicon or becoming a dreadnaught). Furthermore, removal from battle =/= death, not only in Crusade, but in also in every other campaign based system from GW (necomunda, warcry, etc).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Oh, and they stayed Loyalists too throughout?

Boy, that totally fits in with the wider 40k Narrative!

Doesn't always, but certainly can. I mean, there are some damn old loyalist characters in matched play games who have never died or been tainted. Why does it fit with lore when it's them and not some unit in a Crusade?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Progression isn't better. It's just different.

Really? Well then why does every pen and RPG that I've ever played include a progression system, yet many lack the things you hate on Crusade for lacking?

I mean, pen and paper RPG's are universally acknowledged for being the undisputed masters of narrative games. So just find me one that doesn't include a progression system okay? You might be able to- I've played more than 50 different pen and paper RPG's over a gaming career that started in grade 3, but I haven't played them all. Can't think of any that didn't include a progression system off the top of my head.

I think you're missing the point,

Progession isn't the be all end all determining factor for if something is narrative.

I'm fine with progression, just not the "progression" system that GW has tacked on to the core rules(which while ok, are far from good).

I'd hardly call crusade 'tacked on'.

Ok, horribly integrated

Thanks for getting it HBMC.

Done trying to convince others. They can bitch and whine and piss and moan as much as they want to.

I'm the one who wins because I'm the one who's having fun.

Sick of this thread now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Remember that time when the Chapter of the Flourescent Monks fought the entire Imperium for 100 years and learned everything there is to know and suffered every scar they could, yet they fought with the exact same people every single battle and no one ever died on either side? Oh, and they stayed Loyalists too throughout?

Boy, that totally fits in with the wider 40k Narrative!

I'm fairly sure I've read quite a few 40k noves which are perfectly described by this.

You also need to decide whether you complain about people playing random people in a crusade or the same ones.

Not to mention that crusade actually supports units and models dying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Thanks for getting it HBMC.

Done trying to convince others. They can bitch and whine and piss and moan as much as they want to.

I'm the one who wins because I'm the one who's having fun.

Sick of this thread now.

True. I'd like to say that your contribution to this thread was very interesting to read, and I agree with most of it.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Remember that time when the Chapter of the Flourescent Monks fought the entire Imperium for 100 years and learned everything there is to know

not possible as written; units get 4 battle honours each. That's the cap. 4.

So they learned a few things in about 6 months and then stopped learning for 99.5 years. Narrative!

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


and suffered every scar they could, yet they fought with the exact same people every single battle and no one ever died on either side?

unlikely as written,

Why? It's literally impossible for someone to die in the Crusade rules. Sure, you could have the players swap out a unit and fluff it as "dying" but if we're making up rules and narrative whole cloth, why do we need Crusade to help?

PenitentJake wrote:and if pursued will likely result in the affected unit changing forms (ie. crossing the rubicon or becoming a dreadnaught).

But only sometimes for some people if you want; no tank crewman or armory officer can become a techmarine, for example.

PenitentJake wrote: Furthermore, removal from battle =/= death, not only in Crusade, but in also in every other campaign based system from GW (necomunda, warcry, etc).

False, the 30k campaign system includes death as a possibility, and even has different modifiers on the chart based on what killed you in the game (e.g. if the attack had Instant Death, you get a -1) which makes it kinda cool where mortals are less likely to survive than Space Marines (since the quantity of weapons that inflict Instant Death on T3 is way higher than T4 or T5).

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Oh, and they stayed Loyalists too throughout?

Boy, that totally fits in with the wider 40k Narrative!

Doesn't always, but certainly can. I mean, there are some damn old loyalist characters in matched play games who have never died or been tainted. Why does it fit with lore when it's them and not some unit in a Crusade?

Most of those loyalists didn't fight Imperium for a century straight.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Progression isn't better. It's just different.

Really? Well then why does every pen and RPG that I've ever played include a progression system, yet many lack the things you hate on Crusade for lacking?

I mean, pen and paper RPG's are universally acknowledged for being the undisputed masters of narrative games. So just find me one that doesn't include a progression system okay? You might be able to- I've played more than 50 different pen and paper RPG's over a gaming career that started in grade 3, but I haven't played them all. Can't think of any that didn't include a progression system off the top of my head.

"All narratives include progression" does not refute "progression by itself is not narrative." the latter of which is my actual claim. I mean I can't think of any pen-and-paper RPGs that are ONLY a progression system and nothing else.

Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Remember that time when the Chapter of the Flourescent Monks fought the entire Imperium for 100 years and learned everything there is to know and suffered every scar they could, yet they fought with the exact same people every single battle and no one ever died on either side? Oh, and they stayed Loyalists too throughout?

Boy, that totally fits in with the wider 40k Narrative!

I'm fairly sure I've read quite a few 40k noves which are perfectly described by this.

Really? I can't think of any, but I also try to stay away from bad writing.

Jidmah wrote:You also need to decide whether you complain about people playing random people in a crusade or the same ones.

Why? Crusade supports both surely?

Jidmah wrote:Not to mention that crusade actually supports units and models dying.

Where?

Honestly at this point codices should simply be lore and art books of the various factions. Rules, data-sheets and point values should just go fully digital, that way it's way easier to update and balance them as meta's come and go, much like patches for PvP videogames.

Pandabeer wrote:
Honestly at this point codices should simply be lore and art books of the various factions. Rules, data-sheets and point values should just go fully digital, that way it's way easier to update and balance them as meta's come and go, much like patches for PvP videogames.

No thanks. I'm good with digital "helpers" like a good dice app or something like that, but WAY too many people have strolled up to ye ol' table over the years saying "Codex? Oh it's all good brah. It's on my phone!" and it has rarely ended well. Yeah, you could print out what you need, but almost no one does that so .... I'll pass on the things I need to actually play the game being fully digital.

Plus, we have fully digital FAQs now, and the ability to update points digitally via the website. Still only happens twice a year so it's not like it would change anything in that regard. There's also the fact that some groups end up really disliking certain updates and decide they want to ignore them. It becomes harder to do that if everything is digital and GW is auto-updating. Yeah, there would likely be ways around that, but what a PITA ...

Tycho wrote:

No thanks. I'm good with digital "helpers" like a good dice app or something like that, but WAY too many people have strolled up to ye ol' table over the years saying "Codex? Oh it's all good brah. It's on my phone!" and it has rarely ended well. Yeah, you could print out what you need, but almost no one does that so .... I'll pass on the things I need to actually play the game being fully digital.

I'm rather curious. Was there a set of problems that generally occurred when playing against someone using a digital codex?

SturmOgre wrote:

Tycho wrote:

No thanks. I'm good with digital "helpers" like a good dice app or something like that, but WAY too many people have strolled up to ye ol' table over the years saying "Codex? Oh it's all good brah. It's on my phone!" and it has rarely ended well. Yeah, you could print out what you need, but almost no one does that so .... I'll pass on the things I need to actually play the game being fully digital.

I'm rather curious. Was there a set of problems that generally occurred when playing against someone using a digital codex?

Several. Every once in a while, it goes ok, but I've just played way too many games where it took too long to find rules, the phone froze and needed rebooted, the app wouldn't launch at all, they were using a outdated (and better) version of a dex and more easily hiding it (this was a tournament specific example), they try to look something up but get interrupted by a call (because I guess no one uses airplane mode), the phone flat out dies, and really, if I want to see a rule in someone's codex, I have no interest in being handed their $800+ smartphone, and it's awkward as hell if they try to hold it for you.

Mainly though, it's just the length of time it takes to search for rules when needed. Obviously this can happen with "real" books as well but it's just not nearly as time consuming.

Also, someone is going to, invariably read that first paragraph, and reply w/out reading this one, but for those folks - Yes, I know you can bookmark relevant pages in most apps that read digital codexes. I have played MAYBE two people who got that right over the years, and it still doesn't really help when the bugs pop up ...

Tycho wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:
Honestly at this point codices should simply be lore and art books of the various factions. Rules, data-sheets and point values should just go fully digital, that way it's way easier to update and balance them as meta's come and go, much like patches for PvP videogames.

No thanks. I'm good with digital "helpers" like a good dice app or something like that, but WAY too many people have strolled up to ye ol' table over the years saying "Codex? Oh it's all good brah. It's on my phone!" and it has rarely ended well. Yeah, you could print out what you need, but almost no one does that so .... I'll pass on the things I need to actually play the game being fully digital.

Plus, we have fully digital FAQs now, and the ability to update points digitally via the website. Still only happens twice a year so it's not like it would change anything in that regard. There's also the fact that some groups end up really disliking certain updates and decide they want to ignore them. It becomes harder to do that if everything is digital and GW is auto-updating. Yeah, there would likely be ways around that, but what a PITA ...

My thoughts pretty much exactly! I get worried when my opponent only has their phone and their battlescribe list. I tried it a couple of times myself and I vastly prefer flipping through a book in the heat of the moment. The stuff that you look-up in-game changes much less through FAQs (datasheets, Stratagems) than points.

Tycho wrote:

SturmOgre wrote:

Tycho wrote:

No thanks. I'm good with digital "helpers" like a good dice app or something like that, but WAY too many people have strolled up to ye ol' table over the years saying "Codex? Oh it's all good brah. It's on my phone!" and it has rarely ended well. Yeah, you could print out what you need, but almost no one does that so .... I'll pass on the things I need to actually play the game being fully digital.

I'm rather curious. Was there a set of problems that generally occurred when playing against someone using a digital codex?

Several. Every once in a while, it goes ok, but I've just played way too many games where it took too long to find rules, the phone froze and needed rebooted, the app wouldn't launch at all, they were using a outdated (and better) version of a dex and more easily hiding it (this was a tournament specific example), they try to look something up but get interrupted by a call (because I guess no one uses airplane mode), the phone flat out dies, and really, if I want to see a rule in someone's codex, I have no interest in being handed their $800+ smartphone, and it's awkward as hell if they try to hold it for you.

Mainly though, it's just the length of time it takes to search for rules when needed. Obviously this can happen with "real" books as well but it's just not nearly as time consuming.

Also, someone is going to, invariably read that first paragraph, and reply w/out reading this one, but for those folks - Yes, I know you can bookmark relevant pages in most apps that read digital codexes. I have played MAYBE two people who got that right over the years, and it still doesn't really help when the bugs pop up ...

Agreed on all counts - been there.

There is nothing worse than several people during a rules dispute trying to peer at a tiny screen with someone going - "Its all good - its somewhere here - its going to take time to find - trust me.....lets not waste time"...yeah....

Much easier for several people to look at a book on a table.

You can just have one person read the rule out loud.

 vict0988 wrote:
You can just have one person read the rule out loud.

I mean, you can... But I've had people read me rules directly from their book and manage to read completely the opposite of what it actually says...

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You can just have one person read the rule out loud.

I mean, you can... But I've had people read me rules directly from their book and manage to read completely the opposite of what it actually says...

Seems as good a way as any to find people you never want to play again. What if someone cheats with their measuring tape? Do you stop using measuring tapes and use folding rulers instead? Like the guy who used an old codex for Battlescribe, how do you catch someone using an old codex? If you've never played against Death Guard before how would you know whether you are playing against 8th or 9th ed Death Guard? Or whether your opponent's list has been made in accordance with 9th ed pts or 8th ed pts?

@Tycho I spent all of 8th using exclusively digital books on a tablet and really enjoyed and preferred it. I totally understand given your experience why you'd be against it though.

I did read your whole post and maybe I just lucked out by using the Epubs on Kobo but the GW Books all had every section bookmarked automatically and swiftly switching back and forth was easy and faster than when I played with hardcovers.

Not sure if your opponents were using something different but just thought I'd point out it was possible out of the box so to speak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You can just have one person read the rule out loud.

I mean, you can... But I've had people read me rules directly from their book and manage to read completely the opposite of what it actually says...

This has certainly been my experience far too often. Not sure on the breakdown between poor reading comprehension and wishful thinking but there have been some stunningly bad interpretations where you have to ask to read it and end up looking at them like Jonathan Swan in that Trump interview after.

 Eldarain wrote:
@Tycho I spent all of 8th using exclusively digital books on a tablet and really enjoyed and preferred it. I totally understand given your experience why you'd be against it though.

I did read your whole post and maybe I just lucked out by using the Epubs on Kobo but the GW Books all had every section bookmarked automatically and swiftly switching back and forth was easy and faster than when I played with hardcovers.

Not sure if your opponents were using something different but just thought I'd point out it was possible out of the box so to speak.

It's definitely an issue with how well-versed a person is with using digital devices and resources. The russian rules archive has a search function, so I usually have rules on my fingertips before my opponent even identified where his book is at. In our group it's also common practice to bring a tablet if you have no other source of rules, which also helps to have additional devices around when someone forgot to charge their phones. Any decent phone or tablet should be able to last long enough to finish your game if you charged it the night before, or at least during your drive to the location. If not - get a power bank, it's not like there is any excuse to not spend some money to have the rules available while pushing around hundreds of dollars of miniatures.

If you have someone who has trouble handling their phone and is looking at a pirated copy or BS solely because they don't want to buy their codex, you are usually in trouble. But that person isn't any different from those who bring an unedited 30 page stack of printed battlescribe roster, lose some pages over the course of the game and spend shuffling through their pile of paper every time they try to figure out what melee weapon they bought their definitely not WYSIWYG sergeant.

Digital isn't inherently worse than paper rules, quite the opposite. It is just that too many people lack the skills to use them properly, and despite what one might think that doesn't seem to be connected to age.
That said, I still always have my books with me, I just don't need them very often.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You can just have one person read the rule out loud.

I mean, you can... But I've had people read me rules directly from their book and manage to read completely the opposite of what it actually says...

My personal favorite was that one guy I met during 5th who had a folder with printed pages from the guard codex and various imperial armor books where he had used photoshop to alter various pages to his advantage. It was eventually found out when he played a guy who owned the actual FW books and ended with him being shouted out of the store.
He is the reason why that store still has ban on self-printed rules to this day.