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.

I've thought that GW should have adopted the mission style from Risk, where the players are assigned specific objectives to take before the game starts, and those are hidden information from the other player.

Table gets set up with 6 objectives on it, players then draw a card or roll on a table to determine what their victory objectives are (so, player A needs to control objective 1, 3 and 6 while B needs 5, 3 and 2). At the end of the game, if one player controls their mission objectives and the other doesn't, then the player who does wins. If both control or neither do, it goes to secondary win conditions, 1 point for controlling an objective in your DZ, 2 for in no mans land, 3 for in opponents DZ for an example off the top of my head.

The fact that you don't know what exact mission your opponent is on allows for tactical play, trying to feint for objectives you don't need to draw forces away from elsewhere, for example.

Streamline the game systems so it takes less time per turn, up the number of turns, and introduce meaningful psychology and pinning systems to make it so there are is a viable role for weaponry and wargear that isn't pure lethality or protection against said lethality.

 vict0988 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

Were you loading up your characters with 4-5 items from the list?

Can you explain why bionics and spiky bits should be upgrades available to a Chaos Lord? I'm considering writing 9th edition fandexes and I'd be very minimalist. I think the relic and WL trait combination achieves so much in terms of customization potential with incredibly few broken or useless options and combos. I can see a bionics and spiky bits relic having a place, but those dinky 5 pt upgrades I don't see why we need, part of why I'm okay with free relics, it means that every relic is the same 25ish pts. I'd add smoke launchers, melta bombs and mounts but almost certainly not veteran skills.

9th edition also had marks if I recall correctly and tonnes of psychic powers, like the list for a Thousand Sons Sorcerer in 3,5 vs 9th should be an easy 9th ed win.

Bionics should be available because Iron Warriors exist, and if Bionics are available to a random IG sergeant, then they absolutely should be available to a Chaos Lord.

Spikey Bits are a way to make your Chaos Lord better at combat than other Chaos Lords - it's +1 attack, the rough equivalent (though not identical) to loyalist SM with Terminator Honors. Flavor wise, not all Chaos forces were of the "spikey bit" variety (e.g., again, Iron Warriors who actively despise Chaos).

I'm still not understanding about the spikes and I'm not sure what will make me understand. Would you take an Iron Warriors Chaos Lord with a lightning claw and then not give him spikes because you felt it out was out of flavour to add it despite it making mathematical sense to add the upgrade when you're already spending 25 on the claw? Would you add the spikes to a World Eaters Chaos Lord with a chainsword even though the extra attack with the chainsword didn't add much?

Yes to both questions.
If I don't think an option fits whatever I'm making? Then regardless of the math/benefits I don't include it.
If I think it does fit? Then, depending upon how iconic I view it, I'll either use it or at least consider it.
If I don't end up using it it's pretty much because I've run out of pts.

 vict0988 wrote:

I'm still not understanding about the spikes and I'm not sure what will make me understand. Would you take an Iron Warriors Chaos Lord with a lightning claw and then not give him spikes because you felt it out was out of flavour to add it despite it making mathematical sense to add the upgrade when you're already spending 25 on the claw? Would you add the spikes to a World Eaters Chaos Lord with a chainsword even though the extra attack with the chainsword didn't add much?

Speaking as someone who has taken mathematically worse options far more recently, yes I would absolutely make that sort of choice.

Also, I could be missing something but wasn't there a limit of 100pts of wargear or something like that? So taking spikes would also mean you'd have fewer points to spend on other choices (and I don't know how the others compete).

I believe a lot of people take options that are not mathematically the best, as long as they are workable and fit with what they like. Be it wargear or units.

To be honest I don't understand what is even the point about spikey bits. While having options is great, some options should be entirely cosmetic and spikey bits is one of such options.

On the other hand some should simply be built in like grenades. They are so cheap that they should be standard because what idiot goes to war without grenades?

There is also the whole WYSIWYG issue. It creates the expectation everything needs to be visually represented which was kinda silly with large upgrade lists.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I've thought that GW should have adopted the mission style from Risk, where the players are assigned specific objectives to take before the game starts, and those are hidden information from the other player.

Table gets set up with 6 objectives on it, players then draw a card or roll on a table to determine what their victory objectives are (so, player A needs to control objective 1, 3 and 6 while B needs 5, 3 and 2). At the end of the game, if one player controls their mission objectives and the other doesn't, then the player who does wins. If both control or neither do, it goes to secondary win conditions, 1 point for controlling an objective in your DZ, 2 for in no mans land, 3 for in opponents DZ for an example off the top of my head.

The fact that you don't know what exact mission your opponent is on allows for tactical play, trying to feint for objectives you don't need to draw forces away from elsewhere, for example.

Streamline the game systems so it takes less time per turn, up the number of turns, and introduce meaningful psychology and pinning systems to make it so there are is a viable role for weaponry and wargear that isn't pure lethality or protection against said lethality.

2nd edition had mission cards, where you picked yours in secret and I think you didn't reveal it until the end maybe, I don't recall. I thought that was a great idea, way better than everything being objective based.

I watched a game of Necromunda for the first time yesterday. It reminded me of this thread. That game has that highly randomized, narrative-focused flavor that people here really love. GW still clearly understands how to make that sort of game. They're just not doing it for 40k. They're doing it for just about every other game - Necromunda, Titanicus, Heresy, almost certainly Legions Imperialis - everything but 40k. And unfortunately 40k is their most important game, the one that everyone is really invested in.

Crusade was ostensibly the version of 40k meant for narrative players. But it doesn't quite scratch that same itch. Why?

Wayniac wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
honestly, as much as i like customisation, thats too many options for the current scale of 40k. The game needs to scale back down if i'm gonna have a RPG player sheet for every unit.

That wargear list covered multiple different armies. I don't see how it's too many, and it's nothing at all like an RPG player sheet.

Was there restrictions on how many things of each categories you could bring? And which armies did that cover? Because this all seems very CSM-specific

Just a points limit you can see in the bottom left and I seem to think there was a limit on number of 1h and 2h weapons although that maybe came later? My memory from 20 years ago isn't great. It looks very CSM-Specific because it is really. The book served to cover all chaos legions, marked and undivided warbands and daemons. But the upgrades shown there were only for the characters and champions iirc. So 1 army that can be played many ways with no loss of character is the best way to look at it and that's the reason this book is considered the peak of codex design for chaos.

Amen. What made the 3.5 book so great was that it let you completely customize your force. Word Bearers played differently to Night Lords who played differently to Alpha Legion who played differently to Your Dudes Renegades. Nothing before or since has ever captured that feeling.

Crusade is still linked to the tourney set of rules in that you were supposed to be able to play a crusade army against a regular matched play army. Can't do that when unit profiles would be different or the army plays in a fluffier way then during tourneys.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

Were you loading up your characters with 4-5 items from the list?

Can you explain why bionics and spiky bits should be upgrades available to a Chaos Lord? I'm considering writing 9th edition fandexes and I'd be very minimalist. I think the relic and WL trait combination achieves so much in terms of customization potential with incredibly few broken or useless options and combos. I can see a bionics and spiky bits relic having a place, but those dinky 5 pt upgrades I don't see why we need, part of why I'm okay with free relics, it means that every relic is the same 25ish pts. I'd add smoke launchers, melta bombs and mounts but almost certainly not veteran skills.

9th edition also had marks if I recall correctly and tonnes of psychic powers, like the list for a Thousand Sons Sorcerer in 3,5 vs 9th should be an easy 9th ed win.

Bionics should be available because Iron Warriors exist, and if Bionics are available to a random IG sergeant, then they absolutely should be available to a Chaos Lord.

Spikey Bits are a way to make your Chaos Lord better at combat than other Chaos Lords - it's +1 attack, the rough equivalent (though not identical) to loyalist SM with Terminator Honors. Flavor wise, not all Chaos forces were of the "spikey bit" variety (e.g., again, Iron Warriors who actively despise Chaos).

I'm still not understanding about the spikes and I'm not sure what will make me understand. Would you take an Iron Warriors Chaos Lord with a lightning claw and then not give him spikes because you felt it out was out of flavour to add it despite it making mathematical sense to add the upgrade when you're already spending 25 on the claw? Would you add the spikes to a World Eaters Chaos Lord with a chainsword even though the extra attack with the chainsword didn't add much?

I think we can assume you have not read the 3.5 Chaos Codex. You really should if not.
The reason you might not pay the 5 points for spikey bits is because there was a limit to how many upgrades you could take before your Chaos Lord became a Daemon Prince. You were expected (via the rules) to use a larger, more intimidating model if you passed that point threshold.
Becoming a Demon Prince had positives and negatives for the model. Being "demonic" was a thing. If you were a demon you had an invulnerable save baked in and thus didn't need to buy an invul save. So you didn't need terminator armor if that was your plan. Terminator armor was 2+/5++ in those days. A demon prince in artificer armor is also 2+/5++. The demon prince is a monstrous creature and gained all the associated rules and was not too fond of engaging Grey Knights in a fist fight.

This was also the same era where you could.make your Tyranids incredibly specific to your own tastes. There were charts of genes and evolutionary paths that made for various hive fleet mutations.
That's why flying ripper swarms existed. Ever seen the ripper swarms conversions with venomcannons? Hormogaunts with a warrior head? Hive node mutation!

How did 3,5 make more of a difference than Chapter Tactics and Chapter Stratagems?

I read the 3,5 CSM codex for research, but it was before my time so I never played with or against it.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I'm still not understanding about the spikes and I'm not sure what will make me understand. Would you take an Iron Warriors Chaos Lord with a lightning claw and then not give him spikes because you felt it out was out of flavour to add it despite it making mathematical sense to add the upgrade when you're already spending 25 on the claw? Would you add the spikes to a World Eaters Chaos Lord with a chainsword even though the extra attack with the chainsword didn't add much?

Speaking as someone who has taken mathematically worse options far more recently, yes I would absolutely make that sort of choice.

I have taken mathematically inferior options often, but it's usually more complicated than +1A, like taking a bad mobile melee unit instead of a good one because it works with this other unit I brought and I think that's neat even if it's still bad or simply I like the model/rules for an overcosted unit or option. I feel like +1A could represent anything and isn't fun to take, like maybe my Iron Hands Chaos Lord was the pre-eminent duelist of the Iron Hands Legion so he deserves an extra attack. Now my opponent might get pissy because I didn't model it on my character and there was that one game 2 months ago where my Chaos Lord didn't have spikes because I didn't have the points for it. But a relic and a WL trait is a big thing so I'm more likely to pay attention to which one of two Chaos Lords have it, it doesn't need to be modelled (although cool if it is). I don't think you need to go "5<3/25=>spikes are the mathematically correct option beep boop" but you might go "I want this Chaos Lord to really smash I'll give him a lightning claw, might as well give him the spikes so he smashes even harder muahaha". Compare that to the different narratives you can brew into the rules of two different relics, one providing supreme offence at the cost of allies and the other providing supreme offence at the cost of the bearer, much more significant than taking or not taking spikes, the spikes only gain narrative weight through their name, fluff text and CSM players actually caring about those. The moment it just becomes "Chaos Lord with lightning claw and +1 A" instead of "Chaos Lord who is such a devout worshipper of the dark gods that he has spikes on his armour see here on his pauldrons which grants him +1A" spikes lose their meaning for existing and just become a mathematical question. I think well-written relics and WL traits are resistant to becoming math questions because their rules are more fun and inherently narrative, but these kinds of micro upgrades are always going to tend towards simplicity and therefore becoming math questions rather than narrative questions.

 Gibblets wrote:
Crusade is still linked to the tourney set of rules in that you were supposed to be able to play a crusade army against a regular matched play army. Can't do that when unit profiles would be different or the army plays in a fluffier way then during tourneys.

So the problem with Crusade is it's not different enough from the baseline tourney ruleset?

If all Crusade needs is more narrative-oriented tweaks to the core rules, then I think that's actually achievable. I could see a version of 40k where the datasheets are shared between narrative/tourney but the core rules are totally different. Maybe in a future edition if the community shows enough interest.

I think one of the issues is, GW thinks its solving the 'soul' issue for narrative players with Crusade, when it's really not. The player base will need to communicate to GW that Crusade isn't quite doing what they want it to do. I think if GW understood this they would definitely have the capability to design a completely different Crusade ruleset, one that would have the same narrative-centric flavor of their other games but shares the same datasheets with the tourney ruleset.

artific3r wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
Crusade is still linked to the tourney set of rules in that you were supposed to be able to play a crusade army against a regular matched play army. Can't do that when unit profiles would be different or the army plays in a fluffier way then during tourneys.

So the problem with Crusade is it's not different enough from the baseline tourney ruleset?

If all Crusade needs is more narrative-oriented tweaks to the core rules, then I think that's actually achievable. I could see a version of 40k where the datasheets are shared between narrative/tourney but the core rules are totally different. Maybe in a future edition if the community shows enough interest.

I think one of the issues is, GW thinks its solving the 'soul' issue for narrative players with Crusade, when it's really not. The player base will need to communicate to GW that Crusade isn't quite doing what they want it to do. I think if GW understood this they would definitely have the capability to design a completely different Crusade ruleset, one that would have the same narrative-centric flavor of their other games but shares the same datasheets with the tourney ruleset.

Ideally the "best" way IMHO would be to have a more detailed (think like HH) set of rules for everything BUT tournament play, and then a stripped down but streamlined set of rules for tournaments. Basically remove all the weird shenanigans. Almost like how they (tried) to do Combat Patrol, where it uses a subset of the rules.

The issue though would be it's likely everyone just gravitates to the tournament rules, and the other set of rules languishes and may as well not exist. Basically exactly what we already saw in 8th with chapter approved and AOS 1.0 and 2.0 with the GHB: The parts not matched play (read: "balanced") were just completely ignored.

Gibblets wrote:Crusade is still linked to the tourney set of rules in that you were supposed to be able to play a crusade army against a regular matched play army. Can't do that when unit profiles would be different or the army plays in a fluffier way then during tourneys.

Yes, kinda hard to play fluffy Salamanders when they're functionally Ultramarines painted green.

Crusade is just Tourney progression.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gibblets wrote:Crusade is still linked to the tourney set of rules in that you were supposed to be able to play a crusade army against a regular matched play army. Can't do that when unit profiles would be different or the army plays in a fluffier way then during tourneys.

Yes, kinda hard to play fluffy Salamanders when they're functionally Ultramarines painted green.

Crusade is just Tourney progression.

I think this sort of sentiment is where I feel the "soul" (at least what I consider it) has been drained since I began playing in 5th edition.

The newer concept that fluff NEEDS to be represented by a special rule applied to your paint job. It's not enough to take flamers, heavy flamers, melta guns, master-crafted weapons and artificer armor (going back to 5th ed for those last 2) to be fluffy with Salamanders. No, you need +1 To Wound rolls with flamers and heavy flamers to be fluffy with them!

 vict0988 wrote:
How did 3,5 make more of a difference than Chapter Tactics and Chapter Stratagems?

I read the 3,5 CSM codex for research, but it was before my time so I never played with or against it.

This is back in a time with a fixed force organisation, before you could take unlimited amounts of any slot or have allies. It was a book that, without touching on the books of chaos, gave you methods to revolutionary change any characters form and function. Possessed and aspiring champs also had this feature built in. There were upgrades and some perks locked behind the marks and there were rules on the marks interacting with each other.

The "chapter tactics" for some legions were one of the first places that force orgs happened that I can recall, including introducing units that otherwise didn't exist or were brought in from other books. It shifted how that army played more than chapter tactics have in recent years. The books of chaos at back for mono god legions/warbands introduced yet more god specific goodness and special rules such as the blessed numbers for free champ upgrades and more extreme force org limitations imposed to get the rewards.

It was about 2 editions ahead of its time and felt like it had immense impact based on your choices.

Wayniac wrote:

The issue though would be it's likely everyone just gravitates to the tournament rules, and the other set of rules languishes and may as well not exist. Basically exactly what we already saw in 8th with chapter approved and AOS 1.0 and 2.0 with the GHB: The parts not matched play (read: "balanced") were just completely ignored.

Why did that happen? Is it simply because tournament rules in general are more popular?

 vict0988 wrote:

I have taken mathematically inferior options often, but it's usually more complicated than +1A, like taking a bad mobile melee unit instead of a good one because it works with this other unit I brought and I think that's neat even if it's still bad or simply I like the model/rules for an overcosted unit or option. I feel like +1A could represent anything and isn't fun to take, like maybe my Iron Hands Chaos Lord was the pre-eminent duelist of the Iron Hands Legion so he deserves an extra attack. Now my opponent might get pissy because I didn't model it on my character and there was that one game 2 months ago where my Chaos Lord didn't have spikes because I didn't have the points for it. But a relic and a WL trait is a big thing so I'm more likely to pay attention to which one of two Chaos Lords have it, it doesn't need to be modelled (although cool if it is). I don't think you need to go "5<3/25=>spikes are the mathematically correct option beep boop" but you might go "I want this Chaos Lord to really smash I'll give him a lightning claw, might as well give him the spikes so he smashes even harder muahaha". Compare that to the different narratives you can brew into the rules of two different relics, one providing supreme offence at the cost of allies and the other providing supreme offence at the cost of the bearer, much more significant than taking or not taking spikes, the spikes only gain narrative weight through their name, fluff text and CSM players actually caring about those. The moment it just becomes "Chaos Lord with lightning claw and +1 A" instead of "Chaos Lord who is such a devout worshipper of the dark gods that he has spikes on his armour see here on his pauldrons which grants him +1A" spikes lose their meaning for existing and just become a mathematical question. I think well-written relics and WL traits are resistant to becoming math questions because their rules are more fun and inherently narrative, but these kinds of micro upgrades are always going to tend towards simplicity and therefore becoming math questions rather than narrative questions.

On the point of relics, I would suggest that you are perhaps missing the forest for the trees. Yes, a relic will potentially have more of an impact than Spikey Bits. But the 3.5 book had many more non-weapon options than just spikey bits. Thus, the presence or absence of Spikey Bits would be just one small factor in how you built a Chaos character. They (for the most part) might not have had the same individual weight as modern Relics, but they more than made up for it in flexibility.

If you don't see why this is an issue, let me try to explain with an example from a different army (one I have much more experience with). Take for a moment the DE Archon in 9th edition. He's a lacklustre character who doesn't shine in any area. He is supposed to support a ranged subfaction but his ranged options are nonexistant. His melee is similarly pitiful, struggling to kill even a single Tactical Marine. His defence is unreliable and evaporates entirely the first time he fails a save. Lastly, his aura is supposed to support units that want to shoot from transports but it doesn't work unless they get out. Improving any of these even to the level of 'mediocre' or 'passable' requires at least one artefact or WLT. Sometimes both. e.g. it takes an artefact just to get him a gun with a range beyond 12". And if you want that gun to do anything, it will cost you your warlord trait as well. Armour that other HQs get as standard costs a relic. A decent melee weapon costs a relic. Thus, merely getting him to the level of a functional HQ costs your entire allotment of customisation.

Meanwhile, a system more akin to the old version would give you far more flexibility in terms of fine-tuning and improving aspects, without having to drop all your customisation into just 2 big choices.

Anyway, to return to the matter of why you'd choose (or not choose) minor options, I'd suggest one of the main reasons would be to make HQs feel different on the table. Again, Spikey Bits alone won't make this happen. But the point would be to combine it with other options to expand the differences. e.g. you might have one Lord with Daemon Armour, Daemonic Resilience, Spikey Bits and a Chainfist as a heavily-armoured behemoth, and then another with Daemonic Aura, Daemonic Flight, and Daemonic Claws to create a sleeker, faster (perhaps more mutated) Lord. Obviously these are just some quick examples, but my point is that Spikey Bits, whilst minor in and of itself, can work together with other options to help flesh out and distinguish characters.

Though, of course, you might just give both Spikey Bits. Maybe one Lord has Wings and another has a Daemon Weapon? Maybe you want twins with identical or near-identical builds? The nice thing about the 3.5 book (and others like it) is that you have the full freedom to choose. You can make your HQs as similar or dissimilar as you like.

artific3r wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

The issue though would be it's likely everyone just gravitates to the tournament rules, and the other set of rules languishes and may as well not exist. Basically exactly what we already saw in 8th with chapter approved and AOS 1.0 and 2.0 with the GHB: The parts not matched play (read: "balanced") were just completely ignored.

Why did that happen? Is it simply because tournament rules in general are more popular?

Honestly? I think it's due to huge amounts of misinformation being peddled and fearmongering that if it's not tournament rules, things *could* be unbalanced and *could* be unfun, and you don't want that right so ignore all this other stuff.

I saw lots of "But what if your opponent did <insert OP/bad thing>" kind of crap being peddled to basically disparage Open/Narrative play in favor of matched play, and even against things like the regular Matched Play missions versus say ITC missions. Just a lot of what was basically trash mainstream media style pandering and spreading fear on everything else to push the narrative (ha) that Matched Play = good, Open/Narrative = bad, and if you don't think that then you must not want a balanced or fun game.

That sort of garbage.

Dudeface wrote:

Which I'd probably add is why it's such a bs example to use to contrast against a 9th ed wargear section, you won't find a bigger contrast and it shouldn't be played off that this is a normal comparison as was the case. Whilst options have been reduced, they've not been hit as heavily for other armies as a whole in comparison. That's ignoring that codex is now actually 5 fully fledged separate books now.

I will freely admit that the comparison doesn't take into account WL traits and Relics. But AFAIK the max number of Relics for a character is one. The maximum number of WL traits is one. And the usual maximum number of either in an army is one of each.

The wargear section I posted is not only for your Lord but for literally any character, and characters could keep adding upgrades until they ran out of points. TBH saying "But WL Traits and Relics" itself is disingenuous, because they're so limited in comparison. Not to mention that they're "free" upgrades with no value attached other than opportunity cost, which is arguably another downside because it limits design space.


. . .

 vict0988 wrote:

Were you loading up your characters with 4-5 items from the list?

Sometimes you were, yeah absolutely. In fact if you took a squad of Chosen you could upgrade any model to a Aspiring Champion, which could choose options from the list. My brother ran a squad of Chosen, each a character, each mounted on a Juggernaut and with a pet Chaos Spawn, with various upgrades (probably Daemonic Strength and other CC oriented buffs). Also note the Veteran Skills section, which could also be used to upgrade whole squads of guys.

 vict0988 wrote:
Can you explain why bionics and spiky bits should be upgrades available to a Chaos Lord? I'm considering writing 9th edition fandexes and I'd be very minimalist. I think the relic and WL trait combination achieves so much in terms of customization potential with incredibly few broken or useless options and combos. I can see a bionics and spiky bits relic having a place, but those dinky 5 pt upgrades I don't see why we need, part of why I'm okay with free relics, it means that every relic is the same 25ish pts. I'd add smoke launchers, melta bombs and mounts but almost certainly not veteran skills.

As others have mentioned, Spiky Bits was just +1 Attack. Bionics was an upgrade available to a number of armies that gave and extra save against a wound iirc. Why is it there? Rule of cool + thematic for certain armies or aesthetics.

 vict0988 wrote:
9th edition also had marks if I recall correctly and tonnes of psychic powers, like the list for a Thousand Sons Sorcerer in 3,5 vs 9th should be an easy 9th ed win.

I don't know what the 9th ed Tzeentch powers looked like but in the 3.5 book each (psychic) god-fealty has their own table of minor psychic powers in addition to at least one major one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

PenitentJake wrote:

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals.

It's nice that every faction gets those options . . .
WL traits are an option for one model.
Relics are an option for one model.
Stratagems often seem like something that should just be an inherent ability of a unit (looking at you, Auto Launchers).

and then I compare that to a legendary old set of options:


And I think, yeah, there was a lot more 'soul' back then.

Right, but as per the part of my post you quoted, look at all the other dexes from the same edition and tell me they had a consistent number of options. They didn't. If an edition has an option-rich dex for chaos, marines and guard, but every other dex screws the pooch or even just doesn't hold to the standard, that does not make it a good edition- it means the edition was good for those factions. There's a difference.

You have to remember, my primary army is sisters; they had good dexes in 2, 3, late 8, and 9. From a Sisters point of view, EVERY OTHER EDITION SUCKED. My secondary army is GSC... You see where I'm going with this?

Different codexes from the era had different options, it's true. . . but they had different types of options. Tyranids had their Biomorphs systems. Imperial Guard had Doctrines. Space Marines had Chapter traits. Some codexes were newer to the game, and arguably initially underserved, such as Tau and Dark Eldar. Those armies got an increased number of options through White Dwarf, Tau got a Kroot army option and also a new sniper unit (I think?), DE got additional wargear for characters and vehicles, iirc. Sisters and Daemonhunters were not fully fledged armies, but that was recognized by giving the rules for allying in units from other codexes. And everybody got the Vehicle Design Rules, except for Tyranids, who instead got the Tyranid Monstrous Creature design system, as well as a Seeding Swarm army list, iirc. Orks was one of the first codexes out of the gate in 3rd and really got stripped down and modified for 3rd ed (ouch), they did later receive optional builds for Speed Freaks and Feral Orks, however. Eldar got their Craftworlds expansion. The Necrons were limited in scope, which I always read as part of their design tbh, but they also got a separate batch of upgrades for custom vehicle design and it was amazing.

3rd was a hard reset on 40k, but once it got going it just kept adding and adding. No model? Who cares! Build your own! I's also say that the way those custom upgrades worked was different per army, matching their character more. Six different biofleets is fine, but customizing your own Nids feels more appropriate.

So sure, there was some disparity in the army lists, but options just kept getting added.

Wayniac wrote:

artific3r wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

The issue though would be it's likely everyone just gravitates to the tournament rules, and the other set of rules languishes and may as well not exist. Basically exactly what we already saw in 8th with chapter approved and AOS 1.0 and 2.0 with the GHB: The parts not matched play (read: "balanced") were just completely ignored.

Why did that happen? Is it simply because tournament rules in general are more popular?

Honestly? I think it's due to huge amounts of misinformation being peddled and fearmongering that if it's not tournament rules, things *could* be unbalanced and *could* be unfun, and you don't want that right so ignore all this other stuff.

I saw lots of "But what if your opponent did <insert OP/bad thing>" kind of crap being peddled to basically disparage Open/Narrative play in favor of matched play, and even against things like the regular Matched Play missions versus say ITC missions. Just a lot of what was basically trash mainstream media style pandering and spreading fear on everything else to push the narrative (ha) that Matched Play = good, Open/Narrative = bad, and if you don't think that then you must not want a balanced or fun game.

That sort of garbage.

I see. I suppose balance will always be a top concern because fairness is always a top concern, and no one wants to play a game they feel is unfair. This means for a new player who doesn't yet know what style of game they like (whether it's more narrative or more competitive), when choosing which style to play, they will most likely go with the one sold as more "fair". In other words new players are more likely to get funneled into matched play because fairness is something that is easy to understand for someone that doesn't know anything about tabletop. It's certainly a lot easier to understand than something as nebulous as "lack of narrative flavor", which won't really mean anything to them until they've gained more experience. But by then it's too late - they're already locked into matched play as the default game mode, and anything else would be considered secondary.

Yeah, the struggle with designing characters in 4e was pretty awesome actually.

There was a tendency to fill up to max wargear points (a 35 pt inquisitor with 100 points of wargear was pretty funny). But it was usually actually a bad buy.

The old example from Imperial Guard was a fully kitted Heroic Senior Officer. He would cost as much as 2 infantry squads - up to 3 or 4 even depending on his Command Squad upgrades too.

These overkitted officers, though, were a major points problem - more often than not, "boys before toys" was the actually useful option. S when considering how to build your characters, you needed to balance max wargear limitation, what would be useful for the role and price you intend for him, and what is narrative.

Generally, if you had a clear narrative vision, the core rules were deep enough that your vision could be translated to the tabletop in a useful way. However, this required a whole litany of options - the narrative role played by a mutated self-loathing Sons of Malice daemon prince is very different to a stoic, disciplined, command-from-afar warsmith.

You can reflect the behavior and capabilities of both in 3.5. In 10th, you may be able to get the Warsmith-ish thing, but no servo arms (or no chaos lord abilities if you run a Warpsmith). But the Malal DP is just gone.

artific3r wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

artific3r wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

The issue though would be it's likely everyone just gravitates to the tournament rules, and the other set of rules languishes and may as well not exist. Basically exactly what we already saw in 8th with chapter approved and AOS 1.0 and 2.0 with the GHB: The parts not matched play (read: "balanced") were just completely ignored.

Why did that happen? Is it simply because tournament rules in general are more popular?

Honestly? I think it's due to huge amounts of misinformation being peddled and fearmongering that if it's not tournament rules, things *could* be unbalanced and *could* be unfun, and you don't want that right so ignore all this other stuff.

I saw lots of "But what if your opponent did <insert OP/bad thing>" kind of crap being peddled to basically disparage Open/Narrative play in favor of matched play, and even against things like the regular Matched Play missions versus say ITC missions. Just a lot of what was basically trash mainstream media style pandering and spreading fear on everything else to push the narrative (ha) that Matched Play = good, Open/Narrative = bad, and if you don't think that then you must not want a balanced or fun game.

That sort of garbage.

I see. I suppose balance will always be a top concern because fairness is always a top concern, and no one wants to play a game they feel is unfair. This means for a new player who doesn't yet know what style of game they like (whether it's more narrative or more competitive), when choosing which style to play, they will most likely go with the one sold as more "fair". In other words new players are more likely to get funneled into matched play because fairness is something that is easy to understand for someone that doesn't know anything about tabletop. It's certainly a lot easier to understand than something as nebulous as "lack of narrative flavor", which won't really mean anything to them until they've gained more experience. But by then it's too late - they're already locked into matched play as the default game mode, and anything else would be considered secondary.

I think there's a little more to it than that. In my experience everyone likes the idea of narrative play, but it rarely lives up to people's expectations. Like when a player has to defend a stronghold against siege its easy to describe that in a really exciting way, but when it actually happens it often turns into a lot of standing still and rolling attacks for the defending player. Leveling characters sounds exciting, but the actual process of playing games with bland characters to earn the ability to make them cool maybe isn't as enthralling as it sounds.

That's not to say narrative play is bad, just that its hard to get right and takes a lot of work to craft a unique experience that plays out the way everyone (both players and the designer) hope. It takes real work and quite a bit of experience to make compelling campaign where you know what side is supposed to win. Pulling it off competitively is a feat that even the games that have pulled it off have only managed in a fraction of their total content. Match play is popular because its focus is generally on being fun. I think players get turned away from narrative play simply because more often than not, the compelling fantasy it offers doesn't translate into as much fun in reality.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Which I'd probably add is why it's such a bs example to use to contrast against a 9th ed wargear section, you won't find a bigger contrast and it shouldn't be played off that this is a normal comparison as was the case. Whilst options have been reduced, they've not been hit as heavily for other armies as a whole in comparison. That's ignoring that codex is now actually 5 fully fledged separate books now.

I will freely admit that the comparison doesn't take into account WL traits and Relics. But AFAIK the max number of Relics for a character is one. The maximum number of WL traits is one. And the usual maximum number of either in an army is one of each.

The wargear section I posted is not only for your Lord but for literally any character, and characters could keep adding upgrades until they ran out of points. TBH saying "But WL Traits and Relics" itself is disingenuous, because they're so limited in comparison. Not to mention that they're "free" upgrades with no value attached other than opportunity cost, which is arguably another downside because it limits design space.

It was fairly common to have strats for extra relics or extra warlord traits, most "smash captains" had 2 warlord traits and a relic. For example:

A Salamanders captain with forged in battle and rites of battle successor traits. Jump pack, thunder hammer and storm shield (3 wargear items no less). Then the imperium sword WT, anvil of strength WT and drake smiter relic. So you get a list of stuff comparable to what a chaos lord would have bought.

GW should just redo Crusade so that it is a completely different ruleset from matched play. Give it the flavor of games like Necromunda or Heresy, or even just any edition of 40k between 2nd and 5th. It won't require nearly as many ongoing balance updates as matched play but it can use the same basic datasheets.

Narrative players don't just want campaigns and RPG mechanics. What they want is narrative choice. They want tons of fine-grained narrative control over their army construction, including things like detachment choice, wargear selection, enhancements, doctrines, psychic disciplines, and whatever other roleplay-oriented systems you can think of. They want narratively detailed game mechanics that describe all of the strange, wacky micro-stories that play out during a battle. They want thematic, flavorful missions that use interesting terrain setups and bespoke mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

I think players get turned away from narrative play simply because more often than not, the compelling fantasy it offers doesn't translate into as much fun in reality.

Completely agree. Successful narrative play is difficult as it requires all participants to come in with a shared understanding of the experience they're aiming for. Unfortunately, even among self-described hardcore narrative players, not everyone can agree on exactly what that entails.

By comparison, matched play is significantly more one-size-fits-all. I can walk into a pick-up game with any random person and have almost 100% certainty on exactly the type of fun I will get out of the experience. Both conceptually and in practical terms, matched play is just a lot more accessible than narrative.

If they made crusade a completely different set of rules chances are you would see it not be touched at all and essentially be a waste of paper

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Which I'd probably add is why it's such a bs example to use to contrast against a 9th ed wargear section, you won't find a bigger contrast and it shouldn't be played off that this is a normal comparison as was the case. Whilst options have been reduced, they've not been hit as heavily for other armies as a whole in comparison. That's ignoring that codex is now actually 5 fully fledged separate books now.

I will freely admit that the comparison doesn't take into account WL traits and Relics. But AFAIK the max number of Relics for a character is one. The maximum number of WL traits is one. And the usual maximum number of either in an army is one of each.

The wargear section I posted is not only for your Lord but for literally any character, and characters could keep adding upgrades until they ran out of points. TBH saying "But WL Traits and Relics" itself is disingenuous, because they're so limited in comparison. Not to mention that they're "free" upgrades with no value attached other than opportunity cost, which is arguably another downside because it limits design space.

It was fairly common to have strats for extra relics or extra warlord traits, most "smash captains" had 2 warlord traits and a relic. For example:

A Salamanders captain with forged in battle and rites of battle successor traits. Jump pack, thunder hammer and storm shield (3 wargear items no less). Then the imperium sword WT, anvil of strength WT and drake smiter relic. So you get a list of stuff comparable to what a chaos lord would have bought.

Ok, for one guy. As opposed to multiple independent chatacters and champions.

Also, can a Chaos Lord even have a Jump Pack anymore?

Matched play is the standardized sport that you can play anywhere, with anyone, in any country or culture, while narrative is the one where you and your friend get together to tell a cool story together, except not everyone has friends to do this with, and even when you do you're not sure if the guy on the other end is really your friend, or if they even define fun in the same way that you do.

Pros of matched play:
- Easier to find games
- Easier to reach a common understanding of the kind of experience you want
- Balance is not the responsibility of the player

Cons:
- Lacks flavor

Pros of narrative play
- Flavor
- Storytelling

Cons:
- Hard to play with randos
- Balance is the responsibility of the player

Neither is better or worse than the other. They are just different products for difference audiences. All GW needs to do is redesign Crusade to better address the needs of the narrative audience,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
If they made crusade a completely different set of rules chances are you would see it not be touched at all and essentially be a waste of paper

You don't think people in this thread would be interested in an officially supported version of modern 40k that was more like 3rd, 4th, or 5th?

artific3r wrote:
You don't think people in this thread would be interested in an officially supported version of modern 40k that was more like 3rd, 4th, or 5th?

I don't think the majority of people would, because I've seen the majority of people become completely indoctrinated in Matched/Competitive play, and once the seeds of that take hold it never lets go. I've seen it over 25 years. once a place goes full into tournament mode, it stays forever.

I think they're scared of fragmenting their audience. But the audience is already fragmented. They actually just need to develop two different games that use the same models. Narrative play getting formalized in 8th and Crusade in 9th/10th both represent steps in the right direction, but they need to take it further. Make Crusade a modernized version of the 5e ruleset instead of a bunch of bookkeeping between rounds of matched play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

artific3r wrote:
You don't think people in this thread would be interested in an officially supported version of modern 40k that was more like 3rd, 4th, or 5th?

I don't think the majority of people would, because I've seen the majority of people become completely indoctrinated in Matched/Competitive play, and once the seeds of that take hold it never lets go. I've seen it over 25 years. once a place goes full into tournament mode, it stays forever.

If by majority you mean the majority of players in general, then yeah. I don't think the average newbie tabletop gamer would ever bother touching narrative play, for the reasons I mentioned in my posts above. It's just not very accessible. People in this thread will have to accept that the classic narrative-focused vision of tabletop wargaming is always going to be somewhat niche compared to matched play. But honestly, that's ok. GW still wants to serve you, as evidenced by all of the other games they make. Narrative 40k players just need to better communicate what they want.