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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

It's not being handed a blank sheet of paper, it's more like mad-libs(fill in the blank when you already have:
A)army rules
B)basic lore of faction/opponent
C)the available units(both sides)
That is literally all you need to make a narrative.
If it was here is a model and make your own game/rules then I'd understand. But with basic 40k, 75% of it is already done for you, do you really need 100%?
If yes then matched play would like to say hi.

Well yeah, because the assumption is that if the codex is writen well, then a 100% pre build army is going to be good an efficient. And an army which is only 75% pre build by the designers would have to be really broken, if it were to be able to beat out armies that are design to work as a whole at 100% of models.

Doesn't even matter if you play narrative or matched play, because in the end the army has to work within the given set of rules. An army that has bad crusade rules or bad unit progression, is going to be just as bad and unfun to play, as a bad regular army played under matched play rules.

Karol wrote:
Well yeah, because the assumption is that if the codex is writen well, then a 100% pre build army is going to be good an efficient. And an army which is only 75% pre build by the designers would have to be really broken, if it were to be able to beat out armies that are design to work as a whole at 100% of models.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

The percentages weren't relating to power or effectiveness(not point of narrative), but to how much of the narrative equation is done for you.
I'm quite sure we could play a narrative game where both would have fun.

Okey, but that is entering the realm of ,when to people agree, are friends and have limitless collections of models, they can write and agree on any set of rules to be good. In reality it doesn't matter which kind of rule set one uses. If one army has good crusade rule on top of good table top rules, then potential for fun is bigger. It is simple as that.

Lets say, for some reason, someone decides that they want to play an imperial fist termintor army. It is horrible and neither the crusade, not the regular marine and factions rules support such a game play. One can write 20 pages of lore how cool the army list is, and would sitll would not be as fun as someone who just runs a regular DE or SoB crusade army.

And effectivness is the point of everything. If someone builds an army X, lets say they want to play a ork army with just bikes. And the ork game play for bikes is horrible. The it will be horrible no matter, if one plays open, narrative or matched play.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but that is entering the realm of ,when to people agree, are friends and have limitless collections of models, they can write and agree on any set of rules to be good. In reality it doesn't matter which kind of rule set one uses. If one army has good crusade rule on top of good table top rules, then potential for fun is bigger. It is simple as that.

Lets say, for some reason, someone decides that they want to play an imperial fist termintor army. It is horrible and neither the crusade, not the regular marine and factions rules support such a game play. One can write 20 pages of lore how cool the army list is, and would sitll would not be as fun as someone who just runs a regular DE or SoB crusade army.

And effectivness is the point of everything. If someone builds an army X, lets say they want to play a ork army with just bikes. And the ork game play for bikes is horrible. The it will be horrible no matter, if one plays open, narrative or matched play.

challenge accepted
You're missing the entire point of narrative & viewing it completely from a "I need to win to have fun" viewpoint.

I've played many games of my 20ish Salamanders vs endless waves of grunts & boys(only had 60 of each). Very narrative.

Played against Knights with only troops, very narrative.

Against magnus with no psyker of own and no way to stop him steamrolling me. Very narrative.

It is not a question of winning. If someone picks an army around lets say termintors, then they want to use termintors, and by use this means that the termintors have to do something durning the game. The I deployed my army, and then my opponent destroyed me option, is just as bad, as I had to sit down with my opponent and we had to deconstruct his army, so he wouldn't destroy me too fast.

If you pick, as in the examples I used, IF termintor armies or orks biker builds, you are already not playing to win.

What you describe is no longer a game, but something that is going around in ones head and not withing a preset set of rules on the table. In fact in a situation you describe someone may claim that something like music or talking with the opponent durning game is just as important as the game. Heck someone could claim that the armies being painted, even ignoring the fully painted rules, is just as important as the game rule set.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but that is entering the realm of ,when to people agree, are friends and have limitless collections of models, they can write and agree on any set of rules to be good. In reality it doesn't matter which kind of rule set one uses. If one army has good crusade rule on top of good table top rules, then potential for fun is bigger. It is simple as that.

Lets say, for some reason, someone decides that they want to play an imperial fist termintor army. It is horrible and neither the crusade, not the regular marine and factions rules support such a game play. One can write 20 pages of lore how cool the army list is, and would sitll would not be as fun as someone who just runs a regular DE or SoB crusade army.

And effectivness is the point of everything. If someone builds an army X, lets say they want to play a ork army with just bikes. And the ork game play for bikes is horrible. The it will be horrible no matter, if one plays open, narrative or matched play.

Efficiency and effectiveness isn't the point if everything. Theme, concept and imagery matter too. You are too hyper focused on the competitive manifestation of the game.

This is why relative power as opposed to absolute power and relative list building, as opposed to list-building-for-advantage is an important component of these types of games and the people that enjoy them.

As yoy say, when you have friends and can agree on how to approach it; this is an important factor, do put some more EXP into friend making and less EXP into codex breaking.

There is no relative power. A list either works or it doesn't. If a list is unable to score objectives or gives up 3 secondaries more or less for free, then it is bad, no matter under what kind of rule set one plays under. When someone decides to play an IF terminator army, they are no longer part of a competition. It is like having a 2 years disadventage in the youngblood division.

Ah and I don't make friends, because people don't like me and fined me wierd, from what I have been told. But thank you for the advice. Still I am not sure what it has to do with the fact that under a narrative system, an army that does not work, has a lower chance of being fun to play WITHIN the narrative set of rules.


And for stuff like theme, concept and imagery, to stand in for game play and rules, the game has to litterally move from the table to your head. At this point one can claim that anything can be part of it or be fun. Good weather outside? game was fun. Spend time with people you don't dislike and had some vodka&kebab after it? game was fun.

It is like being cut off from reality.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Yeah, except on facebook if you pose slightly critical questions like why R&H went legends or why we got in essence 3 years of primaris after primaris and only recently have a break from that nonsense, you will get your comment deleted

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Maybe, but GW of 80's, would have loved Chapterhouse and been happy they existed. Cause back in the day, even at the turn of the millennium, they were as much about the 'hobby' as the 'company'. I mean you had troll magazine, kitbashing guides, rules that 'supported and encouraged' kitbashing, and guides on making your own terrain rather than buying a box of something premade. And models were multipose, lots of weapon and gear choices, etc.

Nowadays they want units to only have the options they come with default in the box, and models/characters/etc., that you had to make on your own are now either deleted or put into Legends, which makes them pretty much deleted anyway.

Karol wrote:
There is no relative power. A list either works or it doesn't. If a list is unable to score objectives or gives up 3 secondaries more or less for free, then it is bad, no matter under what kind of rule set one plays under. When someone decides to play an IF terminator army, they are no longer part of a competition. It is like having a 2 years disadventage in the youngblood division.

Ah and I don't make friends, because people don't like me and fined me wierd, from what I have been told. But thank you for the advice. Still I am not sure what it has to do with the fact that under a narrative system, an army that does not work, has a lower chance of being fun to play WITHIN the narrative set of rules.


And for stuff like theme, concept and imagery, to stand in for game play and rules, the game has to litterally move from the table to your head. At this point one can claim that anything can be part of it or be fun. Good weather outside? game was fun. Spend time with people you don't dislike and had some vodka&kebab after it? game was fun.

It is like being cut off from reality.

That last bit is where your "wierdness" disables you to experience it Karol. That's not your fault but in a way for us normals it's like we read a good book, we immerse ourselves, maybee even give charachters looks in our internal imagination.
The same for a narrative game, in which the later allows for that imersion. It's not the game and it's outcome that matters anymore but the immersion you can achieve, hence why losing or winning becomes secondary too a good narrative match or indeed campaign. Basically the game becomes an instrument for story telling.

However you are indeed correct if an army just doesn't work, rules wise, because it's that bad or that good (normally in narrative the balance needs to be fethed even more than regular 40k for that to happen) then yes that can break immersion. But it is less of an issue in narrative normally, except when it gets too bad, like late 7th where you had in essence for a casual match already about 30min-1h discussion as to what to field to not make the match a forgone conclusion...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Maybe, but GW of 80's, would have loved Chapterhouse and been happy they existed. Cause back in the day, even at the turn of the millennium, they were as much about the 'hobby' as the 'company'. I mean you had troll magazine, kitbashing guides, rules that 'supported and encouraged' kitbashing, and guides on making your own terrain rather than buying a box of something premade. And models were multipose, lots of weapon and gear choices, etc.

Nowadays they want units to only have the options they come with default in the box, and models/characters/etc., that you had to make on your own are now either deleted or put into Legends, which makes them pretty much deleted anyway.

This, also, legends ruleset is so laughably badly designed, especially for a last hurray, that the factions within it feel even more pale then many of them did during 8th.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Okey, but that is entering the realm of ,when to people agree, are friends and have limitless collections of models, they can write and agree on any set of rules to be good. In reality it doesn't matter which kind of rule set one uses. If one army has good crusade rule on top of good table top rules, then potential for fun is bigger. It is simple as that.

Lets say, for some reason, someone decides that they want to play an imperial fist termintor army. It is horrible and neither the crusade, not the regular marine and factions rules support such a game play. One can write 20 pages of lore how cool the army list is, and would sitll would not be as fun as someone who just runs a regular DE or SoB crusade army.

And effectivness is the point of everything. If someone builds an army X, lets say they want to play a ork army with just bikes. And the ork game play for bikes is horrible. The it will be horrible no matter, if one plays open, narrative or matched play.

challenge accepted
You're missing the entire point of narrative & viewing it completely from a "I need to win to have fun" viewpoint.

I've played many games of my 20ish Salamanders vs endless waves of grunts & boys(only had 60 of each). Very narrative.

Played against Knights with only troops, very narrative.

Against magnus with no psyker of own and no way to stop him steamrolling me. Very narrative.

I'm with Karol on this. GWs Crusade system isn't predicated on a "here is a scenario that tells a story". Its based on "you can have games and level people up and create a story". The idea behind Crusade system is emergent storytelling but under the assumption that everyone is on an equal footing and taking balanced armies. You're expected to take a regular army then play normal games and whack a few extra stats onto things at the end. But what if the armies are so unbalanced that one player becomes a runaway winner in terms of XP gained? Its a rich get richer situation and the poor person will never have fun.

And like I said what you detail is is procedural gameplay. The stage is set and the only variable are the actors and how it plays out. Sure you can have an army with a desperate last stand and inevitable defeat but from my understanding that isn't the Crusade rules, thats the Open rules and I think even in the Open scenarios that feature stuff like that there is still a way for the player designed to lose to "win".

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Maybe, but GW of 80's, would have loved Chapterhouse and been happy they existed. Cause back in the day, even at the turn of the millennium, they were as much about the 'hobby' as the 'company'. I mean you had troll magazine, kitbashing guides, rules that 'supported and encouraged' kitbashing, and guides on making your own terrain rather than buying a box of something premade. And models were multipose, lots of weapon and gear choices, etc.

Nowadays they want units to only have the options they come with default in the box, and models/characters/etc., that you had to make on your own are now either deleted or put into Legends, which makes them pretty much deleted anyway.

I didn't mean GW of the 80s. Think Microsoft of the 80s, or another big business from that era.

The fundamental problem with Crusade is that it is in the narrative section of the rulebook, but isn't narrative.

Narrative games tell stories (think Skyrim) - they typically include some form of "Progression" as a mechanic, but the Progression isn't the point. The point is to save Nirn, to defeat Alduin World-Eater. The point of the Dragonborn DLC is to meet the first Dragonborn and his eclectic master Hermaeus Mora, Demon of Fate. The point is to determine if your player-insert character will betray the Skald in search of power or glory - or will save and protect them, and make a powerful enemy in the process.

I don't play Skyrim to fill myself with the excitement of leveling my Sneak and Archery to 100.

Similarly, Crusade is more like "Call of Duty." There's progression, and you unlock things, but the actual meat of the gameplay is just a random battle. You drop in, die fifteen times (and kill 60, if you're good ), nothing really important happens, and you win or lose but whatever, at least you unlocked the Holy Hand Grenade. Maybe next time you can get the Gravedigger shovel with exploding sixes auto-kill assassinations or the Body Armor of 5+ Feel No Pain.

I don't play Call of Duty's pvp progression system for the narrative. Similarly, I can't play Crusade for the narrative - because there isn't one. "Play a Random Battle. Get XP. Buy Unlocks." Now, there's at least a bit of narrative in the Agenda system - a bit. That part I'll grant. Being able to choose your own objectives is pretty narrati-

-oh wait you can do that in Matched Play.

Karol wrote:

There is no relative power. A list either works or it doesn't. If a list is unable to score objectives or gives up 3 secondaries more or less for free, then it is bad, no matter under what kind of rule set one plays under. When someone decides to play an IF terminator army, they are no longer part of a competition. It is like having a 2 years disadvantage in the youngblood division.

I know from your posts you play in a shark tank and have no problem throwing kids into the pit to be mauled by people twice their size. Not everywhere is like that. Of course there’s relative power. You have S-tier lists, A-tier lists all the way through to D-tier lists. You can have as much fun Matching 2 D-tier lists of equal power against each other as you can with more powerful lists. The key is relative balance. Look at Scottish football. Its terrible. Its frantic and rough. And that’s just the weather, the game quality is nearly as bad! And yet it’s a very ‘local’ passion; most scots don’t care what happens in the big leagues (like the premier league in England, the budesleague in Germany or what have you), they’re far more interested in the local game and their ‘crap’ teams; and a game between 2 ‘crap’ teams (well, crap by the standards south of the border) still evokes all the passions of the fans, and is enjoyed by huge numbers of people. Scotland has one of thr highest turnouts for football games as a proportion of the population in the world, apparently. So yeah, ‘bad’ is relative.

Someone turns up, or proposes a game with an uncompetitive IF terminator armour or whatever, I don’t see it as ‘easy prey’ or the player as someone to be stomped. I don’t dismiss them as not being part of the competition. To me, matching that list is an intriguing and interesting challenge, far more so than ‘build the most hyper-efficient list possible’ – the latter isnt ‘expert’ level gaming nor is it the ultimate expression of a game, any twelve year old with a basic understanding of math and simple probability can break a codex. The people in the community, at least to me, are more important than any one game against someone or a cheap win at their expense. The social fabric is what connects us. And I’m far from the only person that thinks this way.

Karol wrote:

Ah and I don't make friends, because people don't like me and fined me wierd, from what I have been told. But thank you for the advice. Still I am not sure what it has to do with the fact that under a narrative system, an army that does not work, has a lower chance of being fun to play WITHIN the narrative set of rules.

Then that’s something you need to work on Karol, for your own sake in life, and not just gaming. I’ve known folks with autism, played against quite a few (even dated the awesome older sister of one for a while) and despite their ‘struggles’ with the social side of things for want of a better word, they were perfectly reasonable guys and they generally worked at it, and got on with it and with a bit of work and life experience, things got easier, and they found their place in the group and in life.

As to what friends have to do with it, that should be obvious. Friends work together. If there’s a problem, in my experience people tend to be happy to work something out. ‘the rules’ are not an angry god that cannot be questioned or reasoned with or a religion that cannot be deviated from. Work-arounds, homebrewing and collaboration have been a part of this hobby decades before ‘gw write terrible rules’ was a corner stone of this side of the hobby. They’re a part of life, full stop. Its understood some work is required at our end, especially if you want to enjoy this hobby in the long-term.

Karol wrote:


And for stuff like theme, concept and imagery, to stand in for game play and rules, the game has to litterally move from the table to your head. At this point one can claim that anything can be part of it or be fun. Good weather outside? game was fun. Spend time with people you don't dislike and had some vodka&kebab after it? game was fun.

It is like being cut off from reality.

Its not being cut off from reality. That’s just you being rude. Imagination harder. To use the meme; 'forge the narrative!'.

And yes? Its called ‘the theatre of the mind’. Good weather? Considering where I live, absolutely crucial to turning an OK day to a great one! Good people? Absolutely critical to ‘having a good time’. Vodka/whiskey/beer and food? Absolutely critical. It’s the other side of the coin to rolling dice. All those things contribute to ‘a good time’. I'll have all of those things. ‘the game’ itself is just dice rolls and is utterly meaningless on its own. Mechanics are fine, but they are ‘dry’ and kind of ‘boring’ on their own. Its like listening to paint dry. It’s the feelings and actions and cinematic moments those dice rolls represent and evoke and bring to life in our minds, and the people we spent our time with that makes it great.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fundamental problem with Crusade is that it is in the narrative section of the rulebook, but isn't narrative.

Narrative games tell stories (think Skyrim) - they typically include some form of "Progression" as a mechanic, but the Progression isn't the point. The point is to save Nirn, to defeat Alduin World-Eater. The point of the Dragonborn DLC is to meet the first Dragonborn and his eclectic master Hermaeus Mora, Demon of Fate. The point is to determine if your player-insert character will betray the Skald in search of power or glory - or will save and protect them, and make a powerful enemy in the process.

I don't play Skyrim to fill myself with the excitement of leveling my Sneak and Archery to 100.

Similarly, Crusade is more like "Call of Duty." There's progression, and you unlock things, but the actual meat of the gameplay is just a random battle. You drop in, die fifteen times (and kill 60, if you're good ), nothing really important happens, and you win or lose but whatever, at least you unlocked the Holy Hand Grenade. Maybe next time you can get the Gravedigger shovel with exploding sixes auto-kill assassinations or the Body Armor of 5+ Feel No Pain.

I don't play Call of Duty's pvp progression system for the narrative. Similarly, I can't play Crusade for the narrative - because there isn't one. "Play a Random Battle. Get XP. Buy Unlocks." Now, there's at least a bit of narrative in the Agenda system - a bit. That part I'll grant. Being able to choose your own objectives is pretty narrati-

-oh wait you can do that in Matched Play.

It's a Narrative system (much like how D&D is a system), but they need to support it with missions and stories to give people some pre-made narratives to run through.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

I feel like it is pretty disingenuous to state that this is not more technically sound rules writing or that the 40K BRB didn't improve in quality:



Or that ignoring the diverse meta to focus on the exception of 9th edition releases ( DE and possibly AdMech ) to say they're not putting books on a more level playing field.

And even if you want to still focus on that then ignoring that they made some pretty good and decisive changes to deal with the issue.

But sure..."Facebook".

I just want to say:
#lifeinasharktank
#karolliveyourlifedontletthemtellyouhowtoliveit

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fundamental problem with Crusade is that it is in the narrative section of the rulebook, but isn't narrative.

Narrative games tell stories (think Skyrim) - they typically include some form of "Progression" as a mechanic, but the Progression isn't the point. The point is to save Nirn, to defeat Alduin World-Eater. The point of the Dragonborn DLC is to meet the first Dragonborn and his eclectic master Hermaeus Mora, Demon of Fate. The point is to determine if your player-insert character will betray the Skald in search of power or glory - or will save and protect them, and make a powerful enemy in the process.

I don't play Skyrim to fill myself with the excitement of leveling my Sneak and Archery to 100.

Similarly, Crusade is more like "Call of Duty." There's progression, and you unlock things, but the actual meat of the gameplay is just a random battle. You drop in, die fifteen times (and kill 60, if you're good ), nothing really important happens, and you win or lose but whatever, at least you unlocked the Holy Hand Grenade. Maybe next time you can get the Gravedigger shovel with exploding sixes auto-kill assassinations or the Body Armor of 5+ Feel No Pain.

I don't play Call of Duty's pvp progression system for the narrative. Similarly, I can't play Crusade for the narrative - because there isn't one. "Play a Random Battle. Get XP. Buy Unlocks." Now, there's at least a bit of narrative in the Agenda system - a bit. That part I'll grant. Being able to choose your own objectives is pretty narrati-

-oh wait you can do that in Matched Play.

Have you looked at the campaign from the book of rust? I think it might fit your ideas of what a narrative should look like much better than generic crusade missions.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fundamental problem with Crusade is that it is in the narrative section of the rulebook, but isn't narrative.

Narrative games tell stories (think Skyrim) - they typically include some form of "Progression" as a mechanic, but the Progression isn't the point. The point is to save Nirn, to defeat Alduin World-Eater. The point of the Dragonborn DLC is to meet the first Dragonborn and his eclectic master Hermaeus Mora, Demon of Fate. The point is to determine if your player-insert character will betray the Skald in search of power or glory - or will save and protect them, and make a powerful enemy in the process.

I don't play Skyrim to fill myself with the excitement of leveling my Sneak and Archery to 100.

Similarly, Crusade is more like "Call of Duty." There's progression, and you unlock things, but the actual meat of the gameplay is just a random battle. You drop in, die fifteen times (and kill 60, if you're good ), nothing really important happens, and you win or lose but whatever, at least you unlocked the Holy Hand Grenade. Maybe next time you can get the Gravedigger shovel with exploding sixes auto-kill assassinations or the Body Armor of 5+ Feel No Pain.

I don't play Call of Duty's pvp progression system for the narrative. Similarly, I can't play Crusade for the narrative - because there isn't one. "Play a Random Battle. Get XP. Buy Unlocks." Now, there's at least a bit of narrative in the Agenda system - a bit. That part I'll grant. Being able to choose your own objectives is pretty narrati-

-oh wait you can do that in Matched Play.

I've had a lot of time to think about your point of view since our first clash, and I've really come to respect your comments, because it is clear that you are a narrative player who cares about narrative. So rather than respond in a way that looks like it's cutting you down or getting antagonistic, I figured maybe just some questions for further input may facilitate more effective discussion.

- Do you think that bespoke agendas in codices provide story hooks?
- Space Marines went first, and I didn't pay as much attention to them as a non-Marine type guy*, but do you feel things like the Territory system in Codex DE, the Archeotech hunter system in Codex AM and the Living Saint System in codex SoB add story hooks?
- I think personally that Plague Purge comes up short as a Crusade resource- I was disappointed at how little there was aside from the Missions themselves, but I did like Beyond the Veil- though I found the WD Flashpoint content to be important to really complete Beyond the Veil); did any of these resources help you create stories?
- I found the Book of Rust to have better content for a Crusade player than Plague Purge, which I personally found to be problematic; it does include guidelines for an actual campaign system, as opposed to the BRB's "Open Crusade" which I agree is pretty much just pure progression system and not much besides; did this resource help you build a story?

My perspective here is that Crusade isn't to be found in the BRB alone- it is the Crusade core... the generic stuff meant to tide people over til the bespoke content comes. Said bespoke content being contained in dexes has an advantage (no extra cost- you need the dex to play the army, so you do get their Crusade content "free"), but that it also comes with a pitfall (you are deprived of the stuff you really want in a Crusade until your dex drops).

Again, your mileage may vary.

Jidmah wrote:Have you looked at the campaign from the book of rust? I think it might fit your ideas of what a narrative should look like much better than generic crusade missions.

I have not looked at the Book of Rust, because pre-written campaigns like that have always existed. If I am forced to buy pre-written campaign books to have narrative play, then Crusade isn't any more special than any other edition. There were pre-written Campaign books in 3rd and 4th too, and there always will be. Crusade isn't new and innovative - heck, even the idea of campaign progression was in the core rules for 4th. It isn't special, it isn't revolutionary, and it isn't even really that good.

I'll just do what I've always done and write my own campaigns, in which case Crusade helps only by adding progression systems for players.

Most Importantly, it makes the "special" part of Crusade irrelevant. The cool part was that you could play Any Opponent and use the narrative for your army. You could play against competitive players, you could play against casual players, you could play against other narrative players. That's how Crusade was sold, was built, and what made it "special" compared to earlier editions. Oh, but you're using a Campaign Book? Nah, pass. Just like asking to play one of the special missions from Codex: Armageddon in 3rd, or a Planetstrike narrative game in 5th.

PenitentJake wrote:
I've had a lot of time to think about your point of view since our first clash, and I've really come to respect your comments, because it is clear that you are a narrative player who cares about narrative. So rather than respond in a way that looks like it's cutting you down or getting antagonistic, I figured maybe just some questions for further input may facilitate more effective discussion.

- Do you think that bespoke agendas in codices provide story hooks?

I think they could but it isn't how they're typically used. I've played against the unique SM agendas, and my opponents have all typically picked them to get their favored character/unit MOAR XP rather than actually following a narrative. The Old Grudges AM Warlord Trait I've seen used more narratively, but again, it's just a normal core rule, not Crusade content.

- Space Marines went first, and I didn't pay as much attention to them as a non-Marine type guy*, but do you feel things like the Territory system in Codex DE, the Archeotech hunter system in Codex AM and the Living Saint System in codex SoB add story hooks?

I do... as long as you care about that. What if your Archon is not concerned with Territory and instead is a pirate raider who lives on a space station in the Void? What if your AM Archmagos is an Ordinator or Reductor Magos and doesn't really pursue archaeotech, instead focusing on perfecting the art and weaponry of war? And the Living Saint system is about a single character - what if I wanted my entire army to have a narrative? Can they all be Living Saints? (Admittedly I havent' seen the Sisters codex, so maybe they can!).

Regardless, those seem fairly reductive. They're story hooks, but story hooks for only a single army, typically tied to only a single facet of an army's lore (e.g. "all Mechanicum adepts are archaeotech hunters, Myrmidons and Ordinators and Reductor don't exist " - GW).

- I think personally that Plague Purge comes up short as a Crusade resource- I was disappointed at how little there was aside from the Missions themselves, but I did like Beyond the Veil- though I found the WD Flashpoint content to be important to really complete Beyond the Veil); did any of these resources help you create stories?

No. They were just more progression systems. "Get X Piercing the Veil points to unlock your Level 2 Relic-of-Badassery, complete with Hello Kitty reskin!!1!"

- I found the Book of Rust to have better content for a Crusade player than Plague Purge, which I personally found to be problematic; it does include guidelines for an actual campaign system, as opposed to the BRB's "Open Crusade" which I agree is pretty much just pure progression system and not much besides; did this resource help you build a story?

It probably would, but it's no different nor better than the campaign resources available in any number of other editions before. Or other games. Crusade is not uniquely narrative and neither is 9th Edition, if extra campaign supplements whose most memorable trait is how they broke the competitive scene is the way that narrative play will be facilitated in 9th.

My perspective here is that Crusade isn't to be found in the BRB alone- it is the Crusade core... the generic stuff meant to tide people over til the bespoke content comes. Said bespoke content being contained in dexes has an advantage (no extra cost- you need the dex to play the army, so you do get their Crusade content "free"), but that it also comes with a pitfall (you are deprived of the stuff you really want in a Crusade until your dex drops).

Again, your mileage may vary.

I agree, but the bespoke content is disappointing. It's typically just one mechanic for an army - "Assemble your territory in Commoragh!" - without really any consideration given to the wider lore of the faction. If I was a DE pirate player and someone invited me to Crusade, I'd probably feel a bit uneasy trying to cram my narrative together with the narrative rules provided for my army. My "exiled-from-Commoragh Pirate Lord is.. building territory in Commoragh? nice."
-------
Furthermore, and this is a wholly separate quibble: I feel the Crusade rules are "special snowflake-y". Which in some ways is good (everyone wants their character to be special) but in many way is bad (if everyone is super extra special, no one is). How many Living Saints will see the galaxy once the Sororitas codex drops? A hundred? A thousand? How many gangs are there in Commoragh fighting over the city to assemble territory? etc. etc.

My Sororitas are not looking forwards to the Living Saint system, because it devalues the narrative ... value... of being a Living Saint. Celestine, Saint Sabbat, Macharius - they were all exceptional. There have been less than a hand's worth of Living Saints in the galactic past. The only other one I can think of is Euphrati Keeler - for four.

With the crusade system and smart XP management, I bet I could get a Sororitas character to Living Saint status in 10 battles. You can already reach the "legendary" rank for Crusade in like 11 games.

Everything you say about Crusade comes across less as "I don't like this!" and more "This is wrong, and no one should use it!".

I mean, you just told me that fun is subjective, and to me Crusade is no different to the progression system in Necromunda, something that I find quite fun.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Everything you say about Crusade comes across less as "I don't like this!" and more "This is wrong, and no one should use it!".

I mean, you just told me that fun is subjective, and to me Crusade is no different to the progression system in Necromunda, something that I find quite fun.

I didn't say "no one should use it". I did say "no one should praise it". Because it isn't different than the narrative rules 40k has made in the past for other editions, complete with progression for random charts to roll on to gain units buffs.

Necromunda's campaign system is very different to Crusade's, even if it includes a similar progression system. Having a progression system is neither more nor less narrative than not having one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Everything you say about Crusade comes across less as "I don't like this!" and more "This is wrong, and no one should use it!".

I mean, you just told me that fun is subjective, and to me Crusade is no different to the progression system in Necromunda, something that I find quite fun.

I was flipping through the 3rd ed rulebook trying to find a specific mission (I didn't find it, I was looking for a version of Meat Grinder that put the defender in the middle of the table but got the edition wrong) and found a progression system there and I suspect that Crusade likely took a lot of it's DNA from that system.

EDIT: For example the honors your units can gain are D6 roll based:

It works great in Necromunda, where everything happens...on Necromunda.

Some great feedback there Unit- a lot of which I agree with. I'll respond to just a few points.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I'll just do what I've always done and write my own campaigns, in which case Crusade helps only by adding progression systems for players.

I think it's important that you can do this, and that it may be a part of the design. In DnD, and WoD, I never used modules because I preferred to make my own. I like the fact that we CAN use just the progression element, and I think the designers actually considered that. So from my perspective, this isn't a weakness, though I agree it isn't exactly a feature either.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
- Do you think that bespoke agendas in codices provide story hooks?

I think they could but it isn't how they're typically used. I've played against the unique SM agendas, and my opponents have all typically picked them to get their favored character/unit MOAR XP rather than actually following a narrative.

Excellent point with which I agree. Not a failure of the system, nor of GW though? Perhaps?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Old Grudges AM Warlord Trait I've seen used more narratively, but again, it's just a normal core rule, not Crusade content.

Super cool, and it reveals my own ignorance; I often talk about having played since '89... Which is true, but what's also true is that the Sisters 6th ed WD Dex + the lack of GSC led me to skip 6 and 7th. If it's a WL trait, kinda cool that it could probably be slotted back in.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

- Space Marines went first, and I didn't pay as much attention to them as a non-Marine type guy*, but do you feel things like the Territory system in Codex DE, the Archeotech hunter system in Codex AM and the Living Saint System in codex SoB add story hooks?

I do... as long as you care about that. What if your Archon is not concerned with Territory and instead is a pirate raider who lives on a space station in the Void? What if your AM Archmagos is an Ordinator or Reductor Magos and doesn't really pursue archaeotech, instead focusing on perfecting the art and weaponry of war? And the Living Saint system is about a single character - what if I wanted my entire army to have a narrative? Can they all be Living Saints? (Admittedly I havent' seen the Sisters codex, so maybe they can!).

Another great point, and I think this goes back to the first about a system that allows people to add and create as well as using it is already there. Given the territory model for DE, for example, it does become easier to create territories outside of Commorragh because you have an exemplar. Granted, they could do more to support that creativity for sure- like once all the dexes are out, I wouldn't be surprised if they release a Crusade game master book; some of it would be copy paste of the BRB + all bespoke dex content in a single book, but it could additionally include detailed sector and system maps and additional tools for the creative campaign builder. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already in development. It would also future proof Crusade against edition churn.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Regardless, those seem fairly reductive. They're story hooks, but story hooks for only a single army, typically tied to only a single facet of an army's lore (e.g. "all Mechanicum adepts are archaeotech hunters, Myrmidons and Ordinators and Reductor don't exist " - GW).

Since there's bespoke content in every dex, it isn't a single army- it is every army, we just don't have them all yet. I take your point about additional subfactions, but I see only two solutions, both of which are bad:

1: add enough crusade content for each subfaction to every dex, increasing the page count and likely price as a result
2: producing a dex and a separate Crusade book for each faction, which would suck because a Crusader would need both

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

- I think personally that Plague Purge comes up short as a Crusade resource- I was disappointed at how little there was aside from the Missions themselves, but I did like Beyond the Veil- though I found the WD Flashpoint content to be important to really complete Beyond the Veil); did any of these resources help you create stories?

No. They were just more progression systems. "Get X Piercing the Veil points to unlock your Level 2 Relic-of-Badassery, complete with Hello Kitty reskin!!1!"

Totally fair, and I'm with you. I liked it because it combined so well with the Flashpoint stuff in WD, but then if that WD content had been included in the mission pack INSTEAD of WD, it would have been better for both of us.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My perspective here is that Crusade isn't to be found in the BRB alone- it is the Crusade core... the generic stuff meant to tide people over til the bespoke content comes. Said bespoke content being contained in dexes has an advantage (no extra cost- you need the dex to play the army, so you do get their Crusade content "free"), but that it also comes with a pitfall (you are deprived of the stuff you really want in a Crusade until your dex drops).

Again, your mileage may vary.

I agree, but the bespoke content is disappointing. It's typically just one mechanic for an army - "Assemble your territory in Commoragh!" - without really any consideration given to the wider lore of the faction.

Oh, I'm not sure I'd agree here; Territories impact almost every unit in the game; your Ascendant Lord doesn't have to be an Archon- Succubai and Haemonculai can too. And they capture territories, but the territories that they control impact specific units in the army. In addition to the rules for capturing territory, and for how held territory affects other units in the army, there are also special requisitions that modify uses and acquisitions of territory.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If I was a DE pirate player and someone invited me to Crusade, I'd probably feel a bit uneasy trying to cram my narrative together with the narrative rules provided for my army. My "exiled-from-Commoragh Pirate Lord is.. building territory in Commoragh? nice."

The story here, typically is: I went on a realspace raid against you, and used the agenda which represents taking your casualties alive as slaves to be sold back in Commorragh so I can buy territory. You don't need to, and never will, know which territory I buy... But maybe the next time I'm ready to raid you again, my Hellions will have an extra battle honour, because the territory I bought with your slaves was gang territory, which helped me increase the resources and power of the Hellions who agree to work with me. When Crusades clash, the narrative style of the resulting story is not Omniscient- it's limited first person. You don't always get to know how you impacted my story, and I don't always get to know how impacted yours, but each of us did impact the other.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Furthermore, and this is a wholly separate quibble: I feel the Crusade rules are "special snowflake-y". Which in some ways is good (everyone wants their character to be special) but in many way is bad (if everyone is super extra special, no one is). How many Living Saints will see the galaxy once the Sororitas codex drops? A hundred? A thousand? How many gangs are there in Commoragh fighting over the city to assemble territory? etc. etc.

One Living Saint per army, max. A saint potentia can be any sororitas character. On another board in a sisters subforum, I think we've got one who is going to use a Dogmata and another who might use a repentia superior- so not all Living saints are alike; stacking battle honours on top further distinguishes one from another.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My Sororitas are not looking forwards to the Living Saint system, because it devalues the narrative ... value... of being a Living Saint. Celestine, Saint Sabbat, Macharius - they were all exceptional. There have been less than a hand's worth of Living Saints in the galactic past. The only other one I can think of is Euphrati Keeler - for four.

All six matriarchs of the sororitas were sainted- Katherine and Dominica in their lifetimes for sure; the percentage of saints among non-Sororitas is low. Among the Soroitas? Not so low. Even those of our sisters who don't become saints do perform Miracles as a part of their regular duties. No other faction can make the same claim. The performance of Miracles is one of the criteria for sainthood.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

With the crusade system and smart XP management, I bet I could get a Sororitas character to Living Saint status in 10 battles. You can already reach the "legendary" rank for Crusade in like 11 games.

I don't think you could get to saint in eleven battles, but if you did, you'd be one of the guys we were complaining about earlier who uses Agendas to level specific characters without concern for story. To create a saint, you complete five trials, and each trial is a multigame process. They only preview one trial. The other thing to keep in mind is that if this was possible, and you did it, there would be an opportunity cost; so get your living saint in ten games? Maybe. But if so, the rest of your army would be lucky to reach battle hardened.

Anyway, thanks for the detailed response. I think all of your comments, even where disagree were interesting, and thanks for putting in the time. I'm aware that this isn't a Crusade specific thread, so for those of you who have again indulged my verbosity, thanks for your patience. And Unit, if you want to follow up without further derailment of a general thread, feel free to DM me.

Cheers!

Excellent point with which I agree. Not a failure of the system, nor of GW though? Perhaps?

If any system entices specific actions, it is very much the systems problem. If in a division something that, I think, is called taking the knee in english, is allowed you are very soon going to see it happen a lot. Systems are gamed, and the number of people that makes stuff harder for themselfs, just to make it harder for themselfs is rather low. And this goes way beyond a game like w40k.

I'll take it to PMs Jake, but I don't have much to say. We seem to generally agree. I guess what I wanted was guidelines, rather than new rules, (or rather rules about writing rules) but I can go into PMs.

As for players vs system: I think a well-designed system will encourage specific behaviors. If a system is encouraging counter-productive behaviors, then the people exploiting the system might share some fault, but the system itself is not innocent and should be improved.

The problem with Crusade is that by being primarily about rules, it encourages rules-centric behavior. The Crusade system doesn't stop you from developing your own narrative and playing according to it, but it doesn't help you do that, either, and in fact it actually makes it harder to do that, because it instead emphasizes a bunch of in-game bonuses that it sets out for you as carrots that you have to actively disregard in some cases in order to tell the story you want to tell.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with Crusade is that by being primarily about rules, it encourages rules-centric behavior. The Crusade system doesn't stop you from developing your own narrative and playing according to it, but it doesn't help you do that, either, and in fact it actually makes it harder to do that, because it instead emphasizes a bunch of in-game bonuses that it sets out for you as carrots that you have to actively disregard in some cases in order to tell the story you want to tell.

How much of that is a Crusade problem and how much of that is a 9th problem? I don't know how true this is broadly but in my local community nobody's managed to make Crusade take off because the people who enjoy 9th are tournament players who don't care about narrative play when they could be practicing the tournament missions, and the people who might find a narrative campaign interesting have all quit 40k because of 9th and are playing other things.