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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think his point was, rather than the lore actually advancing someone along the power structure made for them (e.g. a Leman Russ tank commander becoming a Leman Russ Tank Commander, becoming a Baneblade gunnery officer, then a Baneblade commander, and becoming a Baneblade Tank Commander at the end of it, he instead learns to ignore the penalty of firing his Vanquisher cannon while in close combat or the like.

People, already highly trained in most factions, pick up skills with extreme snappiness (woo, my Keeper of Secrets born before time and with more battles under her belt than stars in the sky is Battle-Hardened after my first campaign battle, and her sword becomes Str 9!).

Promotions are not the same thing as skills - and combat readiness is a thing irl. There's a difference between being trained well and actually seeing combat.

Hecaton wrote:

You wouldn't tell a story in that form in the narrative of a ttrpg or wargame, however. If you want to read a novel you read a novel.

Why not? You can do it with At the Sharp End, the Chain of Command campaign supplement (adding their WW1 expansion).

You can tell Band of Brothers as a wargame...

Really, any story with combat in it that is conducted by groups of soldiers can be told as a wargame. You could get your ancients out and retell battles from the Bhagavad Gita or the campaigns of Joshua as a wargame, if the right rules exist.

Hecaton wrote:
That's a whole different argument that you haven't supported. Come again?

I already explained this in my discussion with PenitentJake in this thread. An assault terminator squad, veteran of decades to centuries of near-constant war, gaining +1" to advance and charge moves because it fought a single platoon-scale skirmish is blatantly against the lore. That's a massive skill increase based on an incredibly tiny amount of experience for such a veteran unit.

(It is, however, an interesting list optimization problem for some people. Do you use Marked for Greatness to get your terminators the vital +1" charge distance or to give your tank a powerful relic weapon?)

You misunderstood the analogy. Take another try at it. I assume you're from the West and are familiar with how relationship structures work over here?

I understood the analogy, it's just a stupid analogy and your condescending attitude does not redeem it. Cheating in a relationship is almost universally agreed to be unethical and harmful behavior. Using named characters in a 40k game is just something you personally don't like doing.

And it's reasonable that a group of people would want to do an enjoyable social activity together. This isn't rocket science. Even if that was my only argument (It's not, and you keep strawmanning me, for which you should apologize), it's a great argument. Hobbies aren't about forced socialization; I'm fine with gatekeeping.

So you admit there is no justification for the ban beyond "I have the ability to do so and you can't stop me"?

You wouldn't tell a story in that form in the narrative of a ttrpg or wargame, however. If you want to read a novel you read a novel.

Why not? Why can't you have a Krieg army (WWI in space) fight a campaign without gaining stat increases?

Hecaton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think his point was, rather than the lore actually advancing someone along the power structure made for them (e.g. a Leman Russ tank commander becoming a Leman Russ Tank Commander, becoming a Baneblade gunnery officer, then a Baneblade commander, and becoming a Baneblade Tank Commander at the end of it, he instead learns to ignore the penalty of firing his Vanquisher cannon while in close combat or the like.

People, already highly trained in most factions, pick up skills with extreme snappiness (woo, my Keeper of Secrets born before time and with more battles under her belt than stars in the sky is Battle-Hardened after my first campaign battle, and her sword becomes Str 9!).

Promotions are not the same thing as skills - and combat readiness is a thing irl. There's a difference between being trained well and actually seeing combat.

Yes, in real life, with real humans, that's true.

What that experience does, though, has almost nothing to do with Crusade. A marksman in a unit remains the marksman even if other members of the unit have seen combat.

It's not like the thing that made Easy Company more elite than the infantry of the 3rd Armored was that they rerolled ones-to-hit and higher AP on their garands.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I’m old enough to have “only with your opponent’s permission” stuck in the back of my head regarding them. Which is stupidly long ago at this point.

lol I’m glad it’s not just me 😁
Guess i need to get that out of my head.
Thanks guys.

I had one regular opponent, back in the day, who would say "no" to any named character. Nice guy, but didn't like those heroes. I got in the habit of bringing the extra models to swap stuff out in case I got him in our random pickup matches

I'd point out that any bonuses ever in tabletop REPRESENT something.

I stress this word because I think it is important not to forget that you're +1 AP to Garand doesn't necessarily represents an overpowered garand. It can recreate better marksmanship on part of the involved soldiers, better ammo being given, maybe a new space tactic to shoots hails of fire more effectively... Whatever.

If your terminators in this campaign go plus 1 inch, it,'s not that they suddenly become fitter. It is that they adapted to the campaign and moved on to apply more agressive tactics and rushing of the codex astartes instead of careful ones.

If you're giving a better weapon to a dude, it can be awarded to him, entrusted to him, have been captured, have been taken from a fallen comrade... Examples are endless and I guess you'd get me.

The point is: when you apply a bonus to a character, in narrative play, you don't focus on the ability itself, but on how/what it allows you to transfer from the story to the tabletop and the other way around.

Yeah but like, why?

I can give the unit +1 BS or -1 AP... if they both represent shooting better, then the only reason they exist is to present the player with a fun optimization problem (-1 AP is better in this unit, +1 BS is better on that unit).

In all campaign systems, you can usually recognize veterans somehow. But that is usually a small part of the system, allowing them a single ability to represent a slight improvement in combat prowess. It isn't the sum total of the entire campaign system.

I mean what does making a Keeper of Secrets Sword strength 9 represent? After a literal timeless eternity of conflict she finally hits people better? And then better still with an additional -1 AP after 3 battles? Boy where was this growth spurt an infinite number of battles ago...

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
I already explained this in my discussion with PenitentJake in this thread. An assault terminator squad, veteran of decades to centuries of near-constant war, gaining +1" to advance and charge moves because it fought a single platoon-scale skirmish is blatantly against the lore. That's a massive skill increase based on an incredibly tiny amount of experience for such a veteran unit.

No it's not. Fluff it as these 5 terminators, who came from different squads, learning to work together as a team to maintain mobility.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

I understood the analogy, it's just a stupid analogy and your condescending attitude does not redeem it. Cheating in a relationship is almost universally agreed to be unethical and harmful behavior. Using named characters in a 40k game is just something you personally don't like doing.

No, you didn't understand the analogy, you strawmanned it, and thus the condescension is justified. Cheating in a relationship is like joining a league that disallows named characters and then sneaking one into your list anyway. Not joining a league where someone wants to disallow named characters is fine; it's like "Hey, we should be exclusive." and then someone being like "No, I don't think we should."

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

So you admit there is no justification for the ban beyond "I have the ability to do so and you can't stop me"?

No, I do not, and you should apologize for failing to respond appropriate to my comment.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Why not? Why can't you have a Krieg army (WWI in space) fight a campaign without gaining stat increases?

You could, but it's generally more fun if they do.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I'd point out that any bonuses ever in tabletop REPRESENT something.

They do, but it doesn't matter what exactly they represent. A unit with centuries of experience in warfare should not be gaining meaningful improvements of any kind by fighting a single platoon-scale skirmish against guard/orks/etc, an enemy they have fought countless times already.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, in real life, with real humans, that's true.

What that experience does, though, has almost nothing to do with Crusade. A marksman in a unit remains the marksman even if other members of the unit have seen combat.

It's not like the thing that made Easy Company more elite than the infantry of the 3rd Armored was that they rerolled ones-to-hit and higher AP on their garands.

Rules are an abstraction, so using the analogy with Easy Company so ham-fistedly doesn't really work. Various things can make a unit elite - better equipment, better training, better teamwork, etc, and the rules have various ways of representing that (sometimes imperfectly).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah but like, why?

I can give the unit +1 BS or -1 AP... if they both represent shooting better, then the only reason they exist is to present the player with a fun optimization problem (-1 AP is better in this unit, +1 BS is better on that unit).

In all campaign systems, you can usually recognize veterans somehow. But that is usually a small part of the system, allowing them a single ability to represent a slight improvement in combat prowess. It isn't the sum total of the entire campaign system.

I mean what does making a Keeper of Secrets Sword strength 9 represent? After a literal timeless eternity of conflict she finally hits people better? And then better still with an additional -1 AP after 3 battles? Boy where was this growth spurt an infinite number of battles ago...

Really, the best answer to this is... it's up to you, as you write you story. You are right however, and multiples rules can overlap and more or less adequatly go for any instance, but that's more a matter of ruleset versus story. I explain myself: the game, its rules, are meant to give you tools to represent things on the tabletop. As such, they are more or less generic and "vague" in nature. On the other side of the coin, you have your story, your campaign, with very precise instances. Thise particular instances have to be trasnfered onto the table using the rules, but, as stated, those are generic.

So, in very few cases will you find one rule that perfectly represents what you intend, not overdoing, not underdoing it.

Otherwise, you can houserule it, but let's be honest, any housruling is at list inspired by said generic and can be far from perfect either.

Hope you get my point in all those ramblings

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

They do, but it doesn't matter what exactly they represent. A unit with centuries of experience in warfare should not be gaining meaningful improvements of any kind by fighting a single platoon-scale skirmish against guard/orks/etc, an enemy they have fought countless times already.

I think they should. Most engagements in real life, or 40k, are not fair - they are asymmetric. The interesting battles are the ones in which the outcome is in doubt - that's the ones that we actually play out. A Terminator squad is going to learn a lot less in countless engagements where they roflstomp orks using teleportation so that the orks can't bring their numerical advantage to bear, compared to the times when they are actually in a "fair" fight against the greenskins. You learn more from failure - or near failure - than success.

Hecaton wrote:
No it's not. Fluff it as these 5 terminators, who came from different squads, learning to work together as a team to maintain mobility.

The fact that you can come up with a rationalization for one specific case, ignoring all of the other terminator squads which don't have the same origin story having only base charge distance, doesn't make it a good system. Your lore explanation is nothing more than a rationalization for something that is primarily about matched play list optimization.

it's like "Hey, we should be exclusive." and then someone being like "No, I don't think we should."

And that's still a stupid analogy. Using named characters is a minor detail, deciding whether or not to have a monogamous relationship is a major life-defining thing.

No, I do not, and you should apologize for failing to respond appropriate to my comment.

Then present the justification instead of weaseling around with "you can't stop me from having the ban if I want one". When all you can come up with is the weakest of defenses the inevitable conclusion is that you have no other ones.

You could

And now finally you acknowledge that the D&D model of storytelling is not the only option and progression systems are not required for narrative play. You may enjoy tinkering with another layer of list optimization and find it lots of fun, that doesn't mean it's essential for other people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
I think they should. Most engagements in real life, or 40k, are not fair - they are asymmetric. The interesting battles are the ones in which the outcome is in doubt - that's the ones that we actually play out. A Terminator squad is going to learn a lot less in countless engagements where they roflstomp orks using teleportation so that the orks can't bring their numerical advantage to bear, compared to the times when they are actually in a "fair" fight against the greenskins. You learn more from failure - or near failure - than success.

That's a nice theory but the reality of Crusade is that you get the fastest progression from 100-0 massacres where victory is inevitable and you can carefully arrange all of your agendas and XP farming to maximize your chosen unit's benefits. That terminator squad with centuries of experience will gain more from a 100-0 massacre of a platoon of generic guardsmen than from a 30-65 loss against a Tau army featuring a brand new battlesuit design the Imperium has never encountered before.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
stuff

If you're going to willfully ignore the points which show you to be incorrect, and fail to apologize when you misrepresent my points, there's no use talking to you. Keep your opinion to yourself; it's based on lies and useless to anyone else.

Hecaton wrote:
If you're going to willfully ignore the points which show you to be incorrect, and fail to apologize when you misrepresent my points, there's no use talking to you. Keep your opinion to yourself; it's based on lies and useless to anyone else.

And here we have it: more weaseling and condescending accusations, no attempt to provide any justification for a ban on named characters beyond "you can't stop me from banning them".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

And here we have it: more weaseling and condescending accusations, no attempt to provide any justification for a ban on named characters beyond "you can't stop me from banning them".

Everyone can see the points I made throughout the thread; you just look like a dishonest twit for ignoring them and trying to act like I haven't made any points.

Hecaton wrote:
Everyone can see the points I made throughout the thread; you just look like a dishonest twit for ignoring them and trying to act like I haven't made any points.

Then name them. Name your reasons for banning named characters, other than "if we want to ban them you can't tell us what to do".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Then name them. Name your reasons for banning named characters, other than "if we want to ban them you can't tell us what to do".

I already did. You can go back and read them if you're so interested. However, it's clear you don't care, you're going to misrepresent my argument in an ill-fated attempt to discredit me. You're lying and arguing in bad faith; I'm not going to go through it again so you can ignore it and misrepresent what I'm saying again. I'll save my effort for people who aren't liars.

Regarding specifically the crusade rules, it is not a matter of narrative/not narrative play, it is a state of rules at a given moment. That certain rulesets edited by GW suck and don't bring satisfaction as a player - I'll give you this eagerly.

Once more, the point is not so much about rules itself than a spirit and a way of enjoying the game.

In the exact same spirit, Veterancy of 4th edition rulebook is quite comfortable to use in my opinion. If you find a complementary ruleset that suits you, then the question is out and the matter again revolves only about tastes and preferences in the end, and the full right of anyone to play the game like they want to.

Hecaton wrote:
I already did. You can go back and read them if you're so interested. However, it's clear you don't care, you're going to misrepresent my argument in an ill-fated attempt to discredit me. You're lying and arguing in bad faith; I'm not going to go through it again so you can ignore it and misrepresent what I'm saying again. I'll save my effort for people who aren't liars.

Lots of weaseling and accusations, no arguments of any substance. You've now spent more time complaining about how you don't have to provide answers than it would have taken you to list those answers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Once more, the point is not so much about rules itself than a spirit and a way of enjoying the game.

The rules are relevant because the original reason progression systems came up was the claim that a ban on named characters is justified by their inability to participate in Crusade's advancement system.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Lots of weaseling and accusations, no arguments of any substance. You've now spent more time complaining about how you don't have to provide answers than it would have taken you to list those answers.

Right, because I'm not going to spend the time listing those answers when they're already in the thread, you read them, realized you do not value truth or good faith argumentation at all, and acted like I never said them because it would poke holes in your reprobate outlook.

The rules are relevant because the original reason progression systems came up was the claim that a ban on named characters is justified by their inability to participate in Crusade's advancement system

Which is true in a way since they don't benefit that much from the rules as designed.

But that's not actually the main point, and if I may, it was mostly cited as a reason why the ban on named characters was not a catastrophic blow to an army more than an outright argument in favor of dropping them.

Edit: added quote for ease of reference

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

But that's not actually the main point, and if I may, it was mostly cited as a reason why the ban on named characters was not a catastrophic blow to an army more than an outright argument in favor of dropping them.

You forgot, he's ignoring that part and pretending nobody said it because it makes his argument worse.

Hecaton wrote:
Right, because I'm not going to spend the time listing those answers when they're already in the thread, you read them, realized you do not value truth or good faith argumentation at all, and acted like I never said them because it would poke holes in your reprobate outlook.

Insults, weaseling, and continuing to spend more time insisting that you don't need to provide arguments than it would take for you to clarify your position (if you have any interest in good-faith discussion rather than winning the debate bro e-sport).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
But that's not actually the main point, and if I may, it was mostly cited as a reason why the ban on named characters was not a catastrophic blow to an army more than an outright argument in favor of dropping them.

Then what exactly is the "main point" that justifies a ban on named characters, other than "I want to and you can't stop me"?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I'll make a quick summary because otherwise you are going to whine that I dodge something.

-Feeling your battle is not the concern of bigger official characters to make more focus on yours

-Have them get skills/weapons/special rules good or bad to reflect their character development

-going full RPG and using them as an avatar

-playing in a timeframe or place that would more or less invalidate a character in some way shape or form.

Main point: because keeping them at bay might be part of a complementray houserules set to try and steer a common story, defining its boundaries and goals. As for what they may be, see non complete list above, quoting myself a few post above, already summarising a few of the reasons given.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Insults, weaseling, and continuing to spend more time insisting that you don't need to provide arguments than it would take for you to clarify your position (if you have any interest in good-faith discussion rather than winning the debate bro e-sport).

Insults can be accurate, and I'm saying the most bold-faced honest thing in the thread by calling you out. You can go do the work if you care to understand my position; it's clear that you don't, and given that you've been blatantly misrepresenting my posts it's obvious to anyone that you're the one more concerned with "winning" a debate. I'll stick to caring about truth.

Hecaton wrote:
Insults can be accurate, and I'm saying the most bold-faced honest thing in the thread by calling you out. You can go do the work if you care to understand my position; it's clear that you don't, and given that you've been blatantly misrepresenting my posts it's obvious to anyone that you're the one more concerned with "winning" a debate. I'll stick to caring about truth.

I have seen you give many arguments for why you do not use named characters in your own army. I have yet to see a single valid argument justifying banning other people from using them, only "I want to and you can't stop me".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

I have seen you give many arguments for why you do not use named characters in your own army. I have yet to see a single valid argument justifying banning other people from using them, only "I want to and you can't stop me".

That's incorrect, you have seen them, you just don't want to admit that you have because it would mean that you'd have to admit that you're wrong. It's utterly dishonest and bad faith argumentation. The fact that you won't even say that they're bad reasons, but straight up ignoring that they've been made, tells me that you're absolutely dishonest on this topic.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
-Feeling your battle is not the concern of bigger official characters to make more focus on yours

-going full RPG and using them as an avatar

-playing in a timeframe or place that would more or less invalidate a character in some way shape or form.

Irrelevant because we're talking about using rules, not lore, and there is a long tradition of using the rules for a named character to represent a character from your own chapter/regiment/etc.

-Have them get skills/weapons/special rules good or bad to reflect their character development

But we've already concluded that advancement is desirable for some players in their own army, not a necessary thing that every unit in everyone else's army must participate in.

Again, if some things are "valid" and some are "not valid", then, give me the chart from the Rules Policing Brigade repertoriating them.