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.
NinthMusketeer wrote: To put simply, if I can go out and balance the game better than GW as someone who does this as a hobby there is really no excuse for them not being able to do so themselves. While there are undoubtedly many factors at play here and I genuinely believe the devs do have good intentions, the only plausible explanation for GW having such crappy balance is because the company as a whole does not want to make it better.
Yes, you could balance the game better IF THAT WAS ALL YOU NEEDED TO DO. Any of us could.
Could you also do it in a way where 2 Codexes are released per month...
It's pretty simple, set a balance point leading up to a CA release, hold that standard until the next CA is released. Don't release an overcharged codex like Drukhari in 9th, AM in 8th, Necrons in 7th, GK in 5th... in the middle of an edition/CA cycle. Casual players don't just have to know how to balance their games, they also have to learn armies, keep up with other hobbies and have a day-job to pay for their plastic crack addiction. Stop white-knighting GW, there is no good reason why they are releasing stuff as stupid as they have released with Drukhari and AdMech or why they've left Tau and CSM to gather dust when it wouldn't take a world of effort to give them a little love.
As a narrative player, and therefore in the same camp as P-Jake, I can safely say I don't like where 40k is at all for narrative play.
40k is "outcome focused" at its core - i.e., if 4 lascannons shoot at a Leman Russ, it is probably dead. The order they're fired in doesn't really matter, nor does the damage the tank takes on the way. This is "about right" for the outcome of an engagement between 4 Lascannons and the Russ, and so it's fine.
Narrative play (I would argue) is process focused. Suddenly, of those 4, it starts to matter. You can see how awful this is in Crusade right now: consider the following example.
The Eldar player has the Titanslayer agenda, and uses three Fire Prisms to engage a Baneblade tank using the cooperative engagement capability of their vehicles (linked fire).
The Baneblade dies and explodes. BOOM! So, who gets the XP?
Ah, yes, the one who fired the last shot, whether it was a shuricannon that did one wound or the main gun. The three tanks are cooperating and working together to bring down a larger foe, but only one can get the XP, because only one can kill it. In the timing in reality, though, not only did they shoot it literally simultaneously but they even shot it with the same shell laser blast.
Crusade's XP system is process focused ("give the XP to the unit that killed the enemy") while 40k is outcome focused ("eh, it's about right that this many battlecannons should kill that Titan").
Here's why this is bad: This causes EXTREMELY warping behavior by people that want a specific unit to get narrative XP rewards, and that behavior is completely non-narrative. A player could, for example, charge with several units of Khorne Berzerkers. But we want to guarantee Kharn Jr. gets the XP points, so we'll charge with one and Kharn Jr. but not the others, and even though one could fight twice we won't let them because we need Kharn Jr. to strike. If a Space Marine Judicator (for example) makes Kharn Jr. strike last, it can actually be disappointing (because the Zerkers have to kill the enemy and 'steal' the XP from Kharn Jr. first).
Another example is my Keepers of Secrets, who behave very erratically indeed in my efforts to do "XP management" during a game - some move away from the enemy to make space for the one behind to charge, like the enemy unit is some kind of buffet but you have to let the person behind you go before you can return for seconds. Or the way my psychic powers go - or even whether I choose to re-roll hits if a unit "can" reroll hits in the fight phase. If I want the enemy to survive so another unit can get XP, I won't even reroll the hits. What's the narrative there? My super-jealous, extra-ambitious, violence-obsessed, excessively-murderous gigantic daemonbeast pulled its punches so that a slightly less experienced gigantic daemonbeast could have the sensation of doing that last wound to the Baneblade?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/07 17:23:16
You have a very skewed perception of what the consumer base is.
for every "competitive" player that goes to stores and chases the meta, theres at least 10 casual ones that dont play in stores and dont participate on the forums. These are the ones making most of GW's money because they often buy new boxes instead of scouring ebay for deals.
Okey, but then we are starting to talk about a group no one sees, and now one can check if it exists and how it exists, because as you said it they are not on any forums. And saying that is 10times as large is then taken based on what? When I say that a lot of RG players bought centurions, I can give arguments for it. All around the worlds people started posting armies with centurions in their armies end of 8th. When IH, and marines in general, started running chaplain dreads, I can do the same. When someone like you says, and I am not saying you are wrong, that there is 10 times as many people who just buy random models, painted them and play at home, where is the proof of that?
People say that w40k became more gamy and tournament focused under ther 8th rule set. Now I don't know how the game looked before, as I did not play back then. But even if it s partially true. GW blew up sales wise when that became a thing. Meaning that at least some of sales have to be generated by the game being more about efficiency and that kind of playing the game.
I just need to talk to the owners of the multiple stores i've visited. They all say the same thing : most of their sales come from people that don't show up in store to play.
And thats for MTG, 40k and AoS. Its still anecdotal but i'm sure its reflected even more with stores that have an online shop.
just split the exp between all the units that participated. youre allowed to houserule stuff like that
And if my opponent disagrees? This has implications for every game of Crusade I play in the future, remember. Or if they collectively earned 2xp on 3 vehicles?
My critique is that GW's narrative rules are bad for narrative play. Saying "well you don't have to use those rules" doesn't refute that point in the slightest. If anything, it is simple agreement with my argument.
I reckon based on your previous posts, Unit, that this will not be a viable "solution" but I'm going to toss it out there.
You can semi-remedy this by making one of the Fire Prisms involved but that did not get the killing blow your Marked for Greatness unit. This way they get XP
Alternatively, you can backfill the narrative by saying the Fire Prism pilot (commander? I don't know the situation inside of Eldar tanks) that dealt the killing blow is the one who gave the command/coordinated the group attack, and he gains the XP as a representation of that heat-of-the-moment commandering.
As a narrative player, and therefore in the same camp as P-Jake, I can safely say I don't like where 40k is at all for narrative play.
40k is "outcome focused" at its core - i.e., if 4 lascannons shoot at a Leman Russ, it is probably dead. The order they're fired in doesn't really matter, nor does the damage the tank takes on the way. This is "about right" for the outcome of an engagement between 4 Lascannons and the Russ, and so it's fine.
Narrative play (I would argue) is process focused. Suddenly, of those 4, it starts to matter. You can see how awful this is in Crusade right now: consider the following example.
The Eldar player has the Titanslayer agenda, and uses three Fire Prisms to engage a Baneblade tank using the cooperative engagement capability of their vehicles (linked fire).
The Baneblade dies and explodes. BOOM! So, who gets the XP?
Ah, yes, the one who fired the last shot, whether it was a shuricannon that did one wound or the main gun. The three tanks are cooperating and working together to bring down a larger foe, but only one can get the XP, because only one can kill it. In the timing in reality, though, not only did they shoot it literally simultaneously but they even shot it with the same shell laser blast.
Crusade's XP system is process focused ("give the XP to the unit that killed the enemy") while 40k is outcome focused ("eh, it's about right that this many battlecannons should kill that Titan").
Here's why this is bad:
This causes EXTREMELY warping behavior by people that want a specific unit to get narrative XP rewards, and that behavior is completely non-narrative. A player could, for example, charge with several units of Khorne Berzerkers. But we want to guarantee Kharn Jr. gets the XP points, so we'll charge with one and Kharn Jr. but not the others, and even though one could fight twice we won't let them because we need Kharn Jr. to strike. If a Space Marine Judicator (for example) makes Kharn Jr. strike last, it can actually be disappointing (because the Zerkers have to kill the enemy and 'steal' the XP from Kharn Jr. first).
Another example is my Keepers of Secrets, who behave very erratically indeed in my efforts to do "XP management" during a game - some move away from the enemy to make space for the one behind to charge, like the enemy unit is some kind of buffet but you have to let the person behind you go before you can return for seconds. Or the way my psychic powers go - or even whether I choose to re-roll hits if a unit "can" reroll hits in the fight phase. If I want the enemy to survive so another unit can get XP, I won't even reroll the hits. What's the narrative there? My super-jealous, extra-ambitious, violence-obsessed, excessively-murderous gigantic daemonbeast pulled its punches so that a slightly less experienced gigantic daemonbeast could have the sensation of doing that last wound to the Baneblade?
I do agree with Unit; I'm just not sure how to solve the problem.
If you expand the experience scale to go 1 - 500, you could divide the total XP gain by all the units that contribute to the Agenda..
But then you run into a book keeping nightmare in a system that already requires a fair bit of it. And you run into the problem of people soloing in order to exploit the increased reward that would be required to offset the mechanic of XP for all contributors.
Without doing this, few units would ever receive a whole number of XP.
There's also the issue that you'd have the whole army level together, or at least closer to it, and that cuts down on the glory factor for individual units- similar to the way some people think every player getting a trophy diminishes sports.
Having some experienced units and some green units fighting on the table together is a great story hook too; experience sharing among units wouldn't necessarily eliminate this- green new units would still join as the supply limit grew, but I do think it would narrow the spectrum of experience in an army, which just doesn't give as much story potential.
Unit is not wrong here, I'm just not sure how to address the issue, and I feel GW's solution is an acceptable level of abstraction. I am sure it's possible to develop something that achieve Unit's ideal- it would be a heck of a game, and I'd totally buy in. But I think it would require a fair amount of detail to avoid the pitfalls, and they would probably have to make it a product line of it's own rather than a "Way to Play" option in the BRB and regular Codices.
There would be advantages- needing a Crusade BRB would have given them a place to drop ALL of the bespoke Crusade content day one, which would also contribute to decluttering dexes. I suspect Unit wouldn't mind this as a solution; I wouldn't either really; I would have started growing a Living Saint a year ago! Imagine what she would be now!
And if they do a reboot for 10th (uggghhh- edition churn is my least favourite aspect of any game), this might be a way to improve the Crusade component, assuming they decide to keep it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 20:03:44
I just need to talk to the owners of the multiple stores i've visited. They all say the same thing : most of their sales come from people that don't show up in store to play.
And thats for MTG, 40k and AoS. Its still anecdotal but i'm sure its reflected even more with stores that have an online shop.
I can imagine this with MtG. People technicaly run events at stores, but they are just registered as store events, in reality they happen in KFCs or McDonnalds where there is enough space to have events every weekend. And I guess the difference between countries where people do play at stores, and those where people play at homes are going to be big.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I just need to talk to the owners of the multiple stores i've visited. They all say the same thing : most of their sales come from people that don't show up in store to play.
And thats for MTG, 40k and AoS. Its still anecdotal but i'm sure its reflected even more with stores that have an online shop.
I can imagine this with MtG. People technicaly run events at stores, but they are just registered as store events, in reality they happen in KFCs or McDonnalds where there is enough space to have events every weekend.
I've never seen that before, but when I was big into MTG I was in a bigger city that has a store focused almost entirely on MTG that holds events.
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW doesn't have any excuses to fall back on for their piss-poor rules.
They're a company that's been doing this for decades, yet has not learnt a thing.
Can you honestly state right in this moment that they've learned nothing?
GW got by on fun rules, awesome models, and engaging fluff. Balance really wasn't on the radar and not until the past ~8 years have we been so tuned into the game. Fantasy was my jam and that was barely balanced ( though more than 40K ), but I enjoyed it anyway. I honestly looked down on most 40K players back then as "passing WAAC gamers". Yes, I know.
The company finally changed hands 6 years ago and turning a massive ship like this takes a ton of time.
2021/06/08 02:19:03
Subject: Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Daedalus81 wrote: Can you honestly state right in this moment that they've learned nothing?
They've learnt how to spin, twist and sometimes just outright lie (to us and themselves) about their "best rules ever!".
Daedalus81 wrote: GW got by on fun rules, awesome models, and engaging fluff. Balance really wasn't on the radar and not until the past ~8 years have we been so tuned into the game. Fantasy was my jam and that was barely balanced ( though more than 40K ), but I enjoyed it anyway. I honestly looked down on most 40K players back then as "passing WAAC gamers". Yes, I know.
That seems more a 'you' thing than anything else.
Daedalus81 wrote: The company finally changed hands 6 years ago and turning a massive ship like this takes a ton of time.
So when do we see signs of that? They're still writing terrible rules. They're still increasing the prices with every release. They do have a Facebook page now, and at least openly don't treat their customers as a necessary evil, so I guess that makes up for it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 02:19:32
You have to understand just how bad Games Workshop truly was during 6th-8th edition 40k. The organisation had lost all pretence of being a strategic war game and was just looking to pump out expensive models to collectors. The time and energy (capital cost) of investing in designing rules for the tabletop was clearly treated with disdain by the C-suite.
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW doesn't have any excuses to fall back on for their piss-poor rules.
They're a company that's been doing this for decades, yet has not learnt a thing.
Can you honestly state right in this moment that they've learned nothing?
GW got by on fun rules, awesome models, and engaging fluff. Balance really wasn't on the radar and not until the past ~8 years have we been so tuned into the game. Fantasy was my jam and that was barely balanced ( though more than 40K ), but I enjoyed it anyway. I honestly looked down on most 40K players back then as "passing WAAC gamers". Yes, I know.
The company finally changed hands 6 years ago and turning a massive ship like this takes a ton of time.
The company didn't 'change hands.' They played a very short round of musical chairs in the boardroom. COO (Roundtree) became CEO and CEO (Kirby) became a 'Non Executive Chairman.'
Roundtree has been with GW for almost 25 years now. As Chief Operating Officer, he'd been a part of most of Kirby's decisions.
You've been taken in by some shiny name placards and glitter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 02:53:20
Gregor Samsa wrote: You have to understand just how bad Games Workshop truly was during 6th-8th edition 40k. The organisation had lost all pretence of being a strategic war game and was just looking to pump out expensive models to collectors. The time and energy (capital cost) of investing in designing rules for the tabletop was clearly treated with disdain by the C-suite.
It started even earlier than that. I'd say at least 8th edition WFB was showing warning signs of where the company was heading in Kirby's hands. The company lost a lot of it's original devs in the mid 00's as well and of the long time devs we have left only Cruddace seems to be working on 40k these days while all the other long term names are working AoS or other games (Vetock is doing Lord of the Rings IIRC).
That isn't to make excuses for the team (I'm still staying out of that fight at this point) just to help lay out some background information for those who don't know.
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW doesn't have any excuses to fall back on for their piss-poor rules.
They're a company that's been doing this for decades, yet has not learnt a thing.
Can you honestly state right in this moment that they've learned nothing?
GW got by on fun rules, awesome models, and engaging fluff. Balance really wasn't on the radar and not until the past ~8 years have we been so tuned into the game. Fantasy was my jam and that was barely balanced ( though more than 40K ), but I enjoyed it anyway. I honestly looked down on most 40K players back then as "passing WAAC gamers". Yes, I know.
The company finally changed hands 6 years ago and turning a massive ship like this takes a ton of time.
The company didn't 'change hands.' They played a very short round of musical chairs in the boardroom. COO (Roundtree) became CEO and CEO (Kirby) became a 'Non Executive Chairman.'
Roundtree has been with GW for almost 25 years now. As Chief Operating Officer, he'd been a part of most of Kirby's decisions.
You've been taken in by some shiny name placards and glitter.
With them changing positions (and Kirby not holding two positions anymore like he'd done in the past) there has been a marked shift in the company's direction. We've been seeing more box sets that are cheaper than individual kits as well, but there has been a marked increase in FOMO over the last couple years and new kits getting more expensive to maintain a profit margin that could easilly be maintained by not taking massive bonuses at the executive level. I'd be more understanding of the prices if they were paying the employees more, but considering GW doesn't seem to be raising wages with the increased profits we can see that at the end of the day the board is still the board, even if they don't outright hate the customers anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 03:02:13
Gregor Samsa wrote: You have to understand just how bad Games Workshop truly was during 6th-8th edition 40k. The organisation had lost all pretence of being a strategic war game and was just looking to pump out expensive models to collectors. The time and energy (capital cost) of investing in designing rules for the tabletop was clearly treated with disdain by the C-suite.
I've been around since the tail end of 1st Ed 40k. I know what they're like.
I absolutely hate crusade, I think it was perfectly the wrong thing to do. What narrative play didn't need was more rules to turn the game into a semi-RPG, i.e. the Dungeons and Dragons treatment. It ends up doing the exact opposite of creating narratively compelling games, by encouraging power games to min-max the options and make ridiculous decisions, exactly as you see in Dungeons and Dragons and in any other RPG system that emphasizes rules and dice-rolling over creating a strong narrative.
Crusade ends up just being Fantasy 40k League, with all the same nonsensicality to it.
yukishiro1 wrote: I absolutely hate crusade, I think it was perfectly the wrong thing to do. What narrative play didn't need was more rules to turn the game into a semi-RPG, i.e. the Dungeons and Dragons treatment. It ends up doing the exact opposite of creating narratively compelling games, by encouraging power games to min-max the options and make ridiculous decisions, exactly as you see in Dungeons and Dragons and in any other RPG system that emphasizes rules and dice-rolling over creating a strong narrative.
Crusade ends up just being Fantasy 40k League, with all the same nonsensicality to it.
I disagree as one of the things that Narrative needed was a tools for its sandbox. I know everyone says that the narrative community doesn't need help, but what Crusade does is make narrative more accessible to more people. People who may not like everything matched play has to offer for example.
I won't say it was done perfectly (should have been rules laid out for using points for example) but it's a solid concept that a lot of people love and is opening up narrative to a wider audience who enjoy the game but don't want to play the more tournament focused side of it.
yukishiro1 wrote: I absolutely hate crusade, I think it was perfectly the wrong thing to do. What narrative play didn't need was more rules to turn the game into a semi-RPG, i.e. the Dungeons and Dragons treatment. It ends up doing the exact opposite of creating narratively compelling games, by encouraging power games to min-max the options and make ridiculous decisions, exactly as you see in Dungeons and Dragons and in any other RPG system that emphasizes rules and dice-rolling over creating a strong narrative.
Crusade ends up just being Fantasy 40k League, with all the same nonsensicality to it.
I disagree as one of the things that Narrative needed was a tools for its sandbox. I know everyone says that the narrative community doesn't need help, but what Crusade does is make narrative more accessible to more people. People who may not like everything matched play has to offer for example.
I won't say it was done perfectly (should have been rules laid out for using points for example) but it's a solid concept that a lot of people love and is opening up narrative to a wider audience who enjoy the game but don't want to play the more tournament focused side of it.
Progression for the sake of progression does not a narrative make.
The decisions you make for your units should never be about gaining XP. They should be the most appropriate for the situation at hand.
I have as much interest in Crusade rules as I do in matched play rules. GW didn't need to bolt on more rules to foster narrative play. Didn't ask for them and didn't need them. But some felt the need to XP TO THE MAX(TM) D&D style and whelp here we go...
yukishiro1 wrote: I absolutely hate crusade, I think it was perfectly the wrong thing to do. What narrative play didn't need was more rules to turn the game into a semi-RPG, i.e. the Dungeons and Dragons treatment. It ends up doing the exact opposite of creating narratively compelling games, by encouraging power games to min-max the options and make ridiculous decisions, exactly as you see in Dungeons and Dragons and in any other RPG system that emphasizes rules and dice-rolling over creating a strong narrative.
Crusade ends up just being Fantasy 40k League, with all the same nonsensicality to it.
I disagree as one of the things that Narrative needed was a tools for its sandbox. I know everyone says that the narrative community doesn't need help, but what Crusade does is make narrative more accessible to more people. People who may not like everything matched play has to offer for example.
I won't say it was done perfectly (should have been rules laid out for using points for example) but it's a solid concept that a lot of people love and is opening up narrative to a wider audience who enjoy the game but don't want to play the more tournament focused side of it.
Progression for the sake of progression does not a narrative make.
The decisions you make for your units should never be about gaining XP. They should be the most appropriate for the situation at hand.
I have as much interest in Crusade rules as I do in matched play rules. GW didn't need to bolt on more rules to foster narrative play. Didn't ask for them and didn't need them. But some felt the need to XP TO THE MAX(TM) D&D style and whelp here we go...
Like I said, it's not perfect, but for the first narrative system we've ever officially gotten? It's not bad and it's a good basis to work from if you're doing something narrative but didn't know how to capture the feeling of your characters and units growing over the course of a campaign.
The system existed before and it didn't need reasons to exploit it.
But you get to pimp out units...but only to a point then.
move on to next and reset. Same type of BS "regular" 40k had devolved into. Newest hotness(i.e. crusade rules for those new models).
Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 06:08:59
2021/06/08 06:09:05
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
It's literally more book-keeping and complexity than playing a GT Mission.
I'm going to agree to disagree on this. I've found many people do better with some kind of framework to work from than GW say "you can do what you want with the rules". Maybe it's not more accessible for you, but from what I've seen it's opened more people up to narrative play since it gives them something to work with.
Kind of the difference between getting people together to play D&D versus being handed paper and pencil and being told to write your own fantasy RPG from scratch is how I've seen it.
ClockworkZion wrote:
It started even earlier than that. I'd say at least 8th edition WFB was showing warning signs of where the company was heading in Kirby's hands. The company lost a lot of it's original devs in the mid 00's as well and of the long time devs we have left only Cruddace seems to be working on 40k these days while all the other long term names are working AoS or other games (Vetock is doing Lord of the Rings IIRC).
That isn't to make excuses for the team (I'm still staying out of that fight at this point) just to help lay out some background information for those who don't know.
All i need to say to that-game design lead for GW from 1990-2004 Andy Chambers.
He gave us among other things-
2nd, 3rd, 4th, and laid the groundwork for 5th ed 40K that came out the year he left.
.4th, 5th and 6th ed WHFB .necromunda
.epic 40K .gorka morka
,battlefleet gothic
And then he left the company, lets say some of us have noticed the difference so yeah gotta agree on this point.
yukishiro1 wrote:I absolutely hate crusade, I think it was perfectly the wrong thing to do. What narrative play didn't need was more rules to turn the game into a semi-RPG, i.e. the Dungeons and Dragons treatment. It ends up doing the exact opposite of creating narratively compelling games, by encouraging power games to min-max the options and make ridiculous decisions, exactly as you see in Dungeons and Dragons and in any other RPG system that emphasizes rules and dice-rolling over creating a strong narrative.
Crusade ends up just being Fantasy 40k League, with all the same nonsensicality to it.
Very true the old kill team campaign progression rules that were a grand total of 2 pages
.a wound chart with 2d6 percentile from 2-66 that gave character to each member of the team that they carried forward in future games
.a skills and experience progression set of rules with caps for stats and wargear as well as special skills.
The book keeping was very minimal, easy to follow and made sense. one of my favorites wounds was impressive scars (battle wound) gives a perminent +1 to LD stat to that model one time only (cannot be gained again) quite appropriate when of of our dark eldar players rolled that result.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP
It's literally more book-keeping and complexity than playing a GT Mission.
I'm going to agree to disagree on this. I've found many people do better with some kind of framework to work from than GW say "you can do what you want with the rules". Maybe it's not more accessible for you, but from what I've seen it's opened more people up to narrative play since it gives them something to work with.
Kind of the difference between getting people together to play D&D versus being handed paper and pencil and being told to write your own fantasy RPG from scratch is how I've seen it.
Then do it like classic battletech does it. they have a book of core rules, and an entire book of optional rules that player groups can pick and choose from. it gives both framework and freedom at the same time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 08:04:33
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP
Voss wrote: The company didn't 'change hands.' They played a very short round of musical chairs in the boardroom. COO (Roundtree) became CEO and CEO (Kirby) became a 'Non Executive Chairman.'
Roundtree has been with GW for almost 25 years now. As Chief Operating Officer, he'd been a part of most of Kirby's decisions.
You've been taken in by some shiny name placards and glitter.
one of the designers once said in an interview that it was not the change from Kirby to Roundtree, but that with that change, the middle managment was replaced as well, and this was the big turning point that allowed them to support the game again (FAQ/Errata)
Kind of the difference between getting people together to play D&D versus being handed paper and pencil and being told to write your own fantasy RPG from scratch is how I've seen it.
no, it is like taking a premade D&D adventure with pre-made characters vs making your own D&D characters and adventure
you don't need to write the rules from scratch because those are already there and Crusade is nice for those who have never done something like this before
the same way the premade D&D characters/adventures are nice for those who have never played P&P and don't want to spend the first night to create characters
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 06:28:07
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2021/06/08 06:28:25
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
It's literally more book-keeping and complexity than playing a GT Mission.
I'm going to agree to disagree on this. I've found many people do better with some kind of framework to work from than GW say "you can do what you want with the rules". Maybe it's not more accessible for you, but from what I've seen it's opened more people up to narrative play since it gives them something to work with.
Kind of the difference between getting people together to play D&D versus being handed paper and pencil and being told to write your own fantasy RPG from scratch is how I've seen it.
The do it like classic battletech does it. they have a book of core rules, and an entire book of optional rules that player groups can pick and choose from. it gives both framework and freedom at the same time.
I'd be okay with a separate Crusade supplement book like the GT pack, sure. Look, I'm not saying what we have is perfect. I freely admit it's flawed and needs work, I'm just saying it's not a bad framework, it just needs to be refined further and I hope GW is going to update it to make it better. More narrative support in the campaign books (like a sequence of games to play in a row with an escalation element to each game with there being different rewards for the winner and loser of each game) would be good too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: The thing is zero imagination, it's like they need to be told how to have fun and tell a story at the same time.
Some people get decision paralysis when given too much freedom. It's why some people don't enjoy games like Minecraft, but give them an open world game like Grand Theft Auto or Breath of the Wild and they dive right in. I'm not saying everyone has to like it, but let's not take potshots at people who enjoy different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingmanHighborn wrote: And GW's seeming hate of people converting and bitz buy/sell/swapping is disappointing.
It's more that GW hates opening themselves up to another Chapterhouse incident. There are better ways to handle it, but GW does business like it's still 1980.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/08 06:35:35
It's not potshots, it's a fundamental skill that just isn't available or anything.
I get that paralysis by analysis is a thing but when you have; stats, lore & models it pretty much writes itself.
Independent thought is a foreign concept, apparently.
Or even tangential, tertiary or otherwise.
If the only way for you to form a narrative is if GW tells you how, fine. But don't go acting like it's something miraculous they've come out with for 9th and hadn't existed since 40k was a thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 06:53:17
Racerguy180 wrote: It's not potshots, it's a fundamental skill that just isn't available or anything.
I get that paralysis by analysis is a thing but when you have; stats, lore & models it pretty much writes itself.
Independent thought is a foreign concept, apparently.
Or even tangential, tertiary or otherwise.
If the only way for you to form a narrative is if GW tells you how, fine. But don't go acting like it's something miraculous they've come out with for 9th.
No, this is definitely potshots. Look, some people aren't great at being handed a blank piece of paper and being told to write a story. Having someone do a lot of the leg work for them makes it possible for them to have fun and there is nothing wrong with that.
If it was as fundamental as you say then homebrew and narrative would be bigger than it was before, but a lot of people don't like to leave the sandbox that the game creators make. Just because you do doesn't make it as fundamental as breathing.
EDIT:
If the only way for you to form a narrative is if GW tells you how, fine. But don't go acting like it's something miraculous they've come out with for 9th and hadn't existed since 40k was a thing.
I don't know what post you're reading but that's not what I've been saying. I've said it's good but flawed. Not great, not perfect and definitely not miraculous, just good. It functions and it can be a fun time with the right people. I've repeated several times that I think it's flawed as well and have even said I would be more than happy if they updated it to be better, or reworked the system entirely if it was an improvement. But I don't think it's the burning trash heap some people seem to think it is (honestly if bookkeeping is the thing that makes it unfun for you I can already tell you're not a person who takes notes when playing an RPG and that's fine but let's not pretend that keeping track of things should make or break a system).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 07:00:16
60PL 
12PL 
Children of Stirba 
Order of Saint Pan Thera 
