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.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Karol wrote:
One day I will stop buying supplements and paying rent, and buy myself a smart phone. It is good to know there is something that works well. Although it is kind of a ironic that a bit like with Battlescribe, it is done by a non GW entity.
Very nice that parts of the community stepped in to resolve a problem, the community didn't create.

I believe CCS was implying that the mission cards are not a required item to play the game since the core rules have a free mission available to play. The cards are an extra bit to play that variant.

Ah okey. I don't think as matched play as a variant, as it is the dominant way to play the game. But I understand the argument much better now.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Andykp wrote:


The 40 k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?

because there is one big difference between the two : the 40k listbuilding will not be free, so them using thesame model for both has gone out the window sadly

But the layout is identical, they have said that the battleforge part of the app will be behind the paywall. The datasheets are in a different section, reference. The announcement specifically said battleforge will be paid for so the datasheets “should” still be free for all. I may be wrong but it makes sense.

Andykp wrote:
The 40 k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?

Past performance is no indication of future performance.

And in simple economical terms: Probably because GW thinks they can get away with it. For AoS it probably needs the boost as it's not as popular as 40k. For 40k they've proven they can release nothing but gak year in and year out and people still lap it up.

Andykp wrote:
The 40k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?

for the very simple reason that the army builder function in the AoS app is free and not for the 40k version so there is already a difference between those
and the only reason to let people pay for the army builder is that GW does not want to give away essential rules for the game for free

saying you can play the full game for free (and not just an demo version) and the app is just a paid calculator is naive

You both may well be right, time will tell.

 kodos wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The 40k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?

for the very simple reason that the army builder function in the AoS app is free and not for the 40k version so there is already a difference between those
and the only reason to let people pay for the army builder is that GW does not want to give away essential rules for the game for free

saying you can play the full game for free (and not just an demo version) and the app is just a paid calculator is naive

??
What demo version do you think people are playing?

I am not aware of anyone who plays the "free" version because it is missing essential parts

 kodos wrote:
I am not aware of anyone who plays the "free" version because it is missing essential parts

Sorry, be more specific.
*The rules - aside from Crusade & a pack of mission cards - are free atm.
*All the unit stats are free atm.
*The pts doc is free.
So what "essential parts" are missing?

ccs wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I am not aware of anyone who plays the "free" version because it is missing essential parts

Sorry, be more specific.
*The rules - aside from Crusade & a pack of mission cards - are free atm.
*All the unit stats are free atm.
*The pts doc is free.
So what "essential parts" are missing?

If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.

Andykp wrote:
If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.

Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.

 Trickstick wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.

Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.

To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.

Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.

To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.

We are in pretty unique spot now with now codexs out though.

I think it’s no bad thing to challenge the idea that matched play is the normal way to play.

We could challenge matched play, but personally I find matched play to be the most interesting. Make one list, bring it up against various opponents and builds, and within different mission conditions and terrain layouts. Then revisit and fine tune the list. Peak 40k if you ask me.

Dabbling with one off battles and casual scenarios is fun and relaxing, but doesn't bring the same engagement and challenge.

 Insectum7 wrote:
and within different mission conditions and terrain layouts.

no, as css insist that it is only one single mission that is free to be played

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.

Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.

To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.

We are in pretty unique spot now with now codexs out though.

I think it’s no bad thing to challenge the idea that matched play is the normal way to play.

I tend to agree but I think that that mindset comes with the territory of being in a different country from those who claim that matched play is the only way. In America the game is typically played in a pick up style at a store where matched play is really the only way to play. I have looked for people who want to play a more relaxed narrative style to no avail, people here just want to go to the store one night a week and play a game.

Narrative play requires a group of dedicated people all with similar goals in mind. It requires a bit more commitment from people and generally in America players are not looking to invest more time than they already do with building, painting and setting aside one night a week to play. Pick up games lend themselves to matched play and if all you can get locally is pick up games then you end up with people only playing matched play.

CCS can make obtuse bad faith arguments all day long but people play matched play, which means they need the cards to play more than just "kill everything" and they don't make their own missions because that would require everyone coming together to agree to those missions.

 Insectum7 wrote:
We could challenge matched play, but personally I find matched play to be the most interesting. Make one list, bring it up against various opponents and builds, and within different mission conditions and terrain layouts. Then revisit and fine tune the list. Peak 40k if you ask me.

Dabbling with one off battles and casual scenarios is fun and relaxing, but doesn't bring the same engagement and challenge.

I get that, it’s not for me but fair enough. I can also see that these new points aren’t great for that.

For me the game is all about the stories, there are characters I have invented who have been part of the game for me since first edition. That world building and filling it with your guys, that’s my peak 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.

Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.

To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.

We are in pretty unique spot now with now codexs out though.

I think it’s no bad thing to challenge the idea that matched play is the normal way to play.

I tend to agree but I think that that mindset comes with the territory of being in a different country from those who claim that matched play is the only way. In America the game is typically played in a pick up style at a store where matched play is really the only way to play. I have looked for people who want to play a more relaxed narrative style to no avail, people here just want to go to the store one night a week and play a game.

Narrative play requires a group of dedicated people all with similar goals in mind. It requires a bit more commitment from people and generally in America players are not looking to invest more time than they already do with building, painting and setting aside one night a week to play. Pick up games lend themselves to matched play and if all you can get locally is pick up games then you end up with people only playing matched play.

CCS can make obtuse bad faith arguments all day long but people play matched play, which means they need the cards to play more than just "kill everything" and they don't make their own missions because that would require everyone coming together to agree to those missions.

It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.

Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree about the rules thing, I have no rules books for AoS. I have an army or two just for the hobby side. I have played a few games with just the free rules, like the free 40K ones now and it woks but literally for a game every 6 months or so. If was playing more often I would have to buy some more content.

Same with 40K, you can play it free but it’s pretty shallow. You do need paid for stuff or be prepared to write it yourself and as bad as everyone says gw game design is, they are better than me.

Andykp wrote:
It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.

Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber? .

I think it's more of a 'skewed impression from taking online discussion as the norm in the hobby' sort of thing, to be honest.

There's a perception amongst many players online that most 40K games are played at gaming clubs (or stores, in the US, where clubs are less common) or tournies, where matched play is indeed the norm due to it being more or less required for pick up games and tournie list building. This is backed up by ... not much, really, aside from anecdotal evidence. I* play at a store, and all the players I speak to play at a store, so clearly most people play at a store. What it ignores is that there is a portion of the playerbase that is occupied by people who play at home with a couple of relatives or friends and rarely or never actually interact with the wider hobby community. It's practically impossible to establish just how large that chunk of the community actually is, but given the volume of GW's sales and the comparative scarcity of stores and clubs of any real significant size, I strongly suspect that it makes up the majority.

How many of those players use matched play rules, and how many use a more narrative-based setup, or just throw models on the table and go for it... is anyone's guess.



*Figurative 'I', not me personally...

Doesn't matter if you play pickup games, or with a select group of friends, or if you do matched play, or narrative games. Better balance is better for everyone. And the current system is pretty unbalanced. Both externally and internally.

If anything I'd say club play is the norm.

To play 40k "at home" you need space + terrain. This is not something a lot of people actually have. I'm a part of a lot of 40k communities and discords and the people who have set-ups where they play regularly in their homes/garages etc is very clearly the minority. Saying "oh but that's just people online it doesn't count" is certainly an opinion, but considering how much the internet controls our entire lives and how ubiquitous it is I think we have to admit that the behaviours and trends of online 40k communities has to be somewhat representative. And it's not like there is this vast swathe of casual garageplayers who don't interact with the hobby online either; this is an enthusiasts hobby and is expensive; if you're into 40k you're likely actively talking about it and sharing experiences online too.

In the US the numbers might be skewed differently, as homes might have the space to set-up tables for play, and some of the larger more empty states might not have much in the way of accessible stores/clubs for people to play at. But in UK, continental Europe, Japan etc this is absolutely not the case. In my city alone I can think of 4 separate stores/gaming clubs, not even counting GW ones. The most people can manage with playing games in their homes is when it's summer and the weather is nice and they might be able to set a table up in their back garden.

 Bosskelot wrote:
If anything I'd say club play is the norm.

It's common in the UK, and down here in Oz, but is apparently much less common in the US.

To play 40k "at home" you need space + terrain. This is not something a lot of people actually have.

Most people have a dinner table. I couldn't say how many people do or don't have terrain, but I would assume if they're playing at home they would collect at least enough to get by. I did when I was starting out.

I'm a part of a lot of 40k communities and discords and the people who have set-ups where they play regularly in their homes/garages etc is very clearly the minority. Saying "oh but that's just people online it doesn't count" is certainly an opinion, but considering how much the internet controls our entire lives and how ubiquitous it is I think we have to admit that the behaviours and trends of online 40k communities has to be somewhat representative. And it's not like there is this vast swathe of casual garageplayers who don't interact with the hobby online either; this is an enthusiasts hobby and is expensive; if you're into 40k you're likely actively talking about it and sharing experiences online too.

The internet may be pervasive, but a lot of people don't actually use it to talk about their hobbies. I've met far more gamers over the years who had no interest in participating in online discussion than those who did. Even amongst those who do, I'd say the majority were casual browsers rather than active participants. The number of gamers actively participating in online discussion is a drop in the ocean.

Insectum7 wrote:We could challenge matched play, but personally I find matched play to be the most interesting. Make one list, bring it up against various opponents and builds, and within different mission conditions and terrain layouts. Then revisit and fine tune the list. Peak 40k if you ask me.

I'll disagree hard that its the most interesting and its perfectly reasonable that you like something i dont- different strokes etc (genuinely not having a go, 7)Even though i have little interest in matched play, i recognise the value of its niche and Im glad it works for you. I did matched play for years and just kinda burned out of it.

For me matched play is the lowest common denominator - and imo for all the benefits of it allowing us to 'play a common format with a complete stranger with a minimum if effort/fuss', it forces a 'default' on how the game is built and played and i find that search for 'one true list' stifling. Personally, while it requires more up-front effort, I much prefer the narrative/collaborative game-building approach and have found games to be far more refreshing and interesting.

Neither of us is wrong. And I'll repeat - I'm glad yours works for you.

insaniak wrote:
Most people have a dinner table. I couldn't say how many people do or don't have terrain, but I would assume if they're playing at home they would collect at least enough to get by. I did when I was starting out.

Indeed- we do the dinner table during the winter and the garage (12×6 board) during the 'better' weather (scotland so 'less grey' is better). Yoyre right about terrain. Regarding terrain, I found when I was younger I only bought 'dudes', now that I'm.older I place far more value on the immersion of scenery *mainly for Kill-Team and Necromunda. Put group has loads - whether North africa/europe terrain/scenic features, ww2 ruins, sci-fi/fantasy and at different scales. You'll find as well in other communities (eg historicals) the scenic elements are considered to be very important.

insaniak wrote:

I'm a part of a lot of 40k communities and discords and the people who have set-ups where they play regularly in their homes/garages etc is very clearly the minority. Saying "oh but that's just people online it doesn't count" is certainly an opinion, but considering how much the internet controls our entire lives and how ubiquitous it is I think we have to admit that the behaviours and trends of online 40k communities has to be somewhat representative. And it's not like there is this vast swathe of casual garageplayers who don't interact with the hobby online either; this is an enthusiasts hobby and is expensive; if you're into 40k you're likely actively talking about it and sharing experiences online too.

The internet may be pervasive, but a lot of people don't actually use it to talk about their hobbies. I've met far more gamers over the years who had no interest in participating in online discussion than those who did. Even amongst those who do, I'd say the majority were casual browsers rather than active participants. The number of gamers actively participating in online discussion is a drop in the ocean.

I'd echo this as well. Of our extended group of 6, I'm the only one that 'wargames online'. One occasionally fb's to 'like' a new box set, or watches YouTube painting tutorials but neither gets involved with forums/discussions.

 insaniak wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.

Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber? .

I think it's more of a 'skewed impression from taking online discussion as the norm in the hobby' sort of thing, to be honest.

There's a perception amongst many players online that most 40K games are played at gaming clubs (or stores, in the US, where clubs are less common) or tournies, where matched play is indeed the norm due to it being more or less required for pick up games and tournie list building. This is backed up by ... not much, really, aside from anecdotal evidence. I* play at a store, and all the players I speak to play at a store, so clearly most people play at a store. What it ignores is that there is a portion of the playerbase that is occupied by people who play at home with a couple of relatives or friends and rarely or never actually interact with the wider hobby community. It's practically impossible to establish just how large that chunk of the community actually is, but given the volume of GW's sales and the comparative scarcity of stores and clubs of any real significant size, I strongly suspect that it makes up the majority.

How many of those players use matched play rules, and how many use a more narrative-based setup, or just throw models on the table and go for it... is anyone's guess.



*Figurative 'I', not me personally...

I have almost never heard of Americans playing garagehammer and I think it's fair to say Americans make up most of 40ks audience these days.

Can confirm you can play 40k over a kitchen table.

My suspicion would be that there are far more garagehammerers out there than club-players. But, in turn, a lot of those garagehammers play relatively infrequently - maybe once every 3-6 months. So someone showing up to the club 2-3 times a month will play a lot more games. They are also more likely to be active in the hobby online - posting on forums, reading blogs, watching videos etc.

Its a bit like how the "tournament scene" is probably only in the thousands (maybe up towards 20k~ if you stretch the definition) - but in the "has consumed some GW product in the past couple of years" is almost certainly in the millions.

 Sim-Life wrote:

I have almost never heard of Americans playing garagehammer and I think it's fair to say Americans make up most of 40ks audience these days.

If they're not active online, you wouldn't, though, would you?

I'm reminded of the high point of the LOTR bubble, when a lot of 40k and WHFB players online were convinced that the game was a flop because they never saw anyone playing it...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
. But, in turn, a lot of those garagehammers play relatively infrequently - maybe once every 3-6 months. So someone showing up to the club 2-3 times a month will play a lot more games.

Maybe. My prime garagehammer days were certainly not like that though. For a time there at the start of 3rd ed, I was living with another player and we were playing several games a week, and regularly having friends over to play on weekends.

These days it's... Less frequent.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

I have almost never heard of Americans playing garagehammer and I think it's fair to say Americans make up most of 40ks audience these days.

If they're not active online, you wouldn't, though, would you?

I'm reminded of the high point of the LOTR bubble, when a lot of 40k and WHFB players online were convinced that the game was a flop because they never saw anyone playing it...

...

Maybe. My prime garagehammer days were certainly not like that though. For a time there at the start of 3rd ed, I was living with another player and we were playing several games a week, and regularly having friends over to play on weekends.

These days it's... Less frequent.

If your flag is anything to go by of course garagehammer isn't going to be common if you have to drive 16 hours through a desert to get to your nearest players house.

I think a lot of this perception about garagehammer and online presence is mired in the fact that Dakka is DEFINITLY an Old Guard stronghold. That is to say almost all of us remember a time when we played with upturned cups for buildings on the polished wood of kitchen tables and our only larger connection to the hobby outside of friends or GW stores was the letters page in White Dwarf. Younger players don't post here. They post in Facebook and Reddit communities. I quit using Facebook groups because I found explaining the same things over and over again annoying.

 insaniak wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.

Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber? .

I think it's more of a 'skewed impression from taking online discussion as the norm in the hobby' sort of thing, to be honest.

There's a perception amongst many players online that most 40K games are played at gaming clubs (or stores, in the US, where clubs are less common) or tournies, where matched play is indeed the norm due to it being more or less required for pick up games and tournie list building. This is backed up by ... not much, really, aside from anecdotal evidence. I* play at a store, and all the players I speak to play at a store, so clearly most people play at a store. What it ignores is that there is a portion of the playerbase that is occupied by people who play at home with a couple of relatives or friends and rarely or never actually interact with the wider hobby community. It's practically impossible to establish just how large that chunk of the community actually is, but given the volume of GW's sales and the comparative scarcity of stores and clubs of any real significant size, I strongly suspect that it makes up the majority.

How many of those players use matched play rules, and how many use a more narrative-based setup, or just throw models on the table and go for it... is anyone's guess.



*Figurative 'I', not me personally...

Yeah you can switch dakka for any online forum in my post really.

The video I posted about 20 pages back with peachy interviewing the ex gw designer where he talks about the gw business ethos of aiming to sell to the “wide end of the trumpet”, the masses of relatively new players entering the hobby, not the old gognards like me who have payed for ever and and have lots of niche tastes. I think that applies here, gw doesn’t care how many people play match play vs garage hammer because none of us are who they aim their products at, so they won’t do the research into which is biggest or most important. It’s only really us online that care I suppose,

I posted that video because it applies to the topic in that is why I think these points have come about. Simplified not simple. More effect for less effort. Keeping it simple to explain to a new comer, a kid walking into a games store having a demo game explained. Not that that kid can’t do the maths, it not hard maths. Just that they aren’t put off by the idea of having to maths!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't matter if you play pickup games, or with a select group of friends, or if you do matched play, or narrative games. Better balance is better for everyone. And the current system is pretty unbalanced. Both externally and internally.

So fed up of hearing this, it’s been around for years, better balance is better for everyone! It’s not true.

Balance is one factor towards enjoyment. It will vary between individuals how important a factor it is. Because balance is normally achieved by adding complexity, eg granular points updated very often or removing complexity, eg less units or less specific weapons profiles that are easier to balance.

For the points specific discussion balance seems to equal a more complex point system. It has been said a million times that granular points equals better balance.

Now to me, balance is not that important to game enjoyment. The environment I play in has less of an impact in our games so I do not give it much value. Simplicity of the points system is very important to me, I do not want to worrying about if I’m using the most up to date points for a bolt pistol on my sergeant. I don’t really want to have to use an app to build my army lists.

So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.

I know this is true because I have played 40K a LONG time and have seem many attempts at increasing balance etc and has this exact thing happen. Like when they started changing pints all the time balance the game. They didn’t always used to do that. When they started I enjoyed the game less, balance improved but my games didn’t.

So better balance does NOT mean better experience. It all depend on at what cost the balance comes and from who experience you view that balance.

Andykp wrote:
So fed up of hearing this, it’s been around for years, better balance is better for everyone! It’s not true.

Balance is one factor towards enjoyment. It will vary between individuals how important a factor it is. Because balance is normally achieved by adding complexity, eg granular points updated very often or removing complexity, eg less units or less specific weapons profiles that are easier to balance.

For the points specific discussion balance seems to equal a more complex point system. It has been said a million times that granular points equals better balance.

Now to me, balance is not that important to game enjoyment. The environment I play in has less of an impact in our games so I do not give it much value. Simplicity of the points system is very important to me, I do not want to worrying about if I’m using the most up to date points for a bolt pistol on my sergeant. I don’t really want to have to use an app to build my army lists.

So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.

I know this is true because I have played 40K a LONG time and have seem many attempts at increasing balance etc and has this exact thing happen. Like when they started changing pints all the time balance the game. They didn’t always used to do that. When they started I enjoyed the game less, balance improved but my games didn’t.

So better balance does NOT mean better experience. It all depend on at what cost the balance comes and from who experience you view that balance.

Intentional imbalance can be good in the right setting. High level Wizards being above and beyond everybody else in 3rd edition D&D felt immersive. Since the game was supposed to be played in a co-op style with a GM creating encounters that challenge all party members in some way, the imbalance only matters if you got a "I want to be the best" attitude at the table.

In a competitive styled game like Warhammer, where the game defines a clear winner among two players, external balance is a must, with internal balance being a very close second (albeit for different reasons). A good base balance helps tournaments and narrative play alike. While the former benefits from a bigger variety for the playing field, the latter will have an easier time creating a game as balanced or unbalanced as desired.

Your preference for not getting updates to your datasheets have nothing to do with any point/PL system, as GW is doing it in both.

a_typical_hero wrote:

In a competitive styled game like Warhammer, where the game defines a clear winner among two players, external balance is a must, with internal balance being a very close second (albeit for different reasons). A good base balance helps tournaments and narrative play alike. While the former benefits from a bigger variety for the playing field, the latter will have an easier time creating a game as balanced or unbalanced as desired.

Your preference for not getting updates to your datasheets have nothing to do with any point/PL system, as GW is doing it in both.

For campaign players though, A GAME defines nothing. It is the series of games that define everything. And some players DO have campaigns that define clear winners and losers... But some campaigns don't.

In 9th ed Crusade, I think Drukhari are the best example of "Winning despite losing." If you play the Ascendant Lord rules, really, your goal is not to defeat as many enemies in realspace in order to have an impact on realspace. Your goal is to take over Commorragh, and everything that happens in realspace is a means to that end.

Now if you DO happen to defeat a lot of enemies in realspace, it is very likely that your Ascent to power in Commorragh will be faster. But you don't have to win in order to make progress toward the story goal- every single time I had the opportunity to gain raid points, I took it no matter how many victory points or experience points I had to sacrifice in order to make it happen.

I do agree with your larger point that better balance can help narrative players... But only if you get that balance without sacrificing narrative tools.

And as to your line about GW updating both points and PL, it's only kind of true. In all of 8th and 9th, I think PL changed once, though it might have been twice. And even then, all the othe gak that comes with a balance update didn't touch Crusade. We never lost the capacity for mixing subfactions in army by using seperate detachments, we never lost air cavalry and we never had a rule of three. And frankly, for me it's THOSE updates rather than PL that were frustrating.

The Dhrukari player should have an equal chance of winning games as everybody else.

If the rules are set in a way that your Archon gets annihilated every.single.game without being able to bring anything of interest home, there is a disconnect between what is happening on the table and what is supposed to happen in the background.

In a balanced environment this can still happen based on player skill, but I'm not convinced that it should be possible to become the head honcho of Commoragh without winning any game at all in the first place.

a_typical_hero wrote:
The Dhrukari player should have an equal chance of winning games as everybody else.

If the rules are set in a way that your Archon gets annihilated every.single.game without being able to bring anything of interest home, there is a disconnect between what is happening on the table and what is supposed to happen in the background.

In a balanced environment this can still happen based on player skill, but I'm not convinced that it should be possible to become the head honcho of Commoragh without winning any game at all in the first place.

Clearly the Drukhari that advances to head honcho without a win, has done so without a fight, else it wouldn't be a possibility

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

The archon took that clearly to heart and so should we.

But that begs the question: What happens if we do so?
Why are we playing a wargame then in the first place



Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

For campaign players though, A GAME defines nothing. It is the series of games that define everything. And some players DO have campaigns that define clear winners and losers... But some campaigns don't.

In 9th ed Crusade, I think Drukhari are the best example of "Winning despite losing." If you play the Ascendant Lord rules, really, your goal is not to defeat as many enemies in realspace in order to have an impact on realspace. Your goal is to take over Commorragh, and everything that happens in realspace is a means to that end.

Now if you DO happen to defeat a lot of enemies in realspace, it is very likely that your Ascent to power in Commorragh will be faster. But you don't have to win in order to make progress toward the story goal- every single time I had the opportunity to gain raid points, I took it no matter how many victory points or experience points I had to sacrifice in order to make it happen.

I do agree with your larger point that better balance can help narrative players... But only if you get that balance without sacrificing narrative tools.

And as to your line about GW updating both points and PL, it's only kind of true. In all of 8th and 9th, I think PL changed once, though it might have been twice. And even then, all the othe gak that comes with a balance update didn't touch Crusade. We never lost the capacity for mixing subfactions in army by using seperate detachments, we never lost air cavalry and we never had a rule of three. And frankly, for me it's THOSE updates rather than PL that were frustrating.

As the poster above stated. Nobody is going to accept an Archon in a place of power that can't walk the walk so to speak. And the same is true with the GSC system. then fact that the campaign faction system is so disconected not just from the battle but also from your opponent is another point why crusade comparativly to a decently made community campaign fails, and doesn't even compare to some of the old campaigns.