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'll also be completely honest and say that I don't think Crusade is very well thought through.

For example, it has lots of shiny special faction rules in the codex books... but those rules are more decoration than substance. A GSC player and a Tau player fighting a Crusade campaign against each other, using their Crusade mechanics, will see both players conquer worlds or even star systems, but not the worlds you're actually fighting over. The opposing player does not interact with, or may not even be aware of the planets the Tau player may be trying to integrate using their Crusade mechanics. The GSC player may be trying to overthrow their home world, a world the Tau has no relation to or way to interact with, despite being the actual opponent. This doesn't feel all that tempting compared to, say, the more involved campaign mechanics laid out in the Horus Heresy black books.

Another big chunk of Crusade is focused on stacking various powerful upgrades on your units as you go, which again is shiny and flashy and all, but creates as many problems as it solves, especially since it results in so many potential places for things to break.

I really hope they do something with Crusade, as its my favorite game mode, and while I doubt they will I wish they'd go back to REAL narrative stuff not just "Matched Play games with tracking XP" which is bland and boring.

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
There's actually a ton of non tournament content released all the time. Players just largely ignore it and bemoan the lack of it in the same breath.

Every codex has campaign rules, the latest scenario deck has cards with asymmetric missions and we're just wrapping up 4 books who definitely aren't being purchased for tournament play.

People will see that and say it "doesn't count" and tell you "no one plays that stuff" and not even try to play the stuff they claim they want. This stuff is absolutely out there you just have to put time into it and show up. If anything drives catering to tournament play, its the simple fact that people vote with their feet and show up to play at those events.

Ok, I'll have to counter this:

Every codex has crusade rules which appears to be a discontinued game mode in 11th.

The latest deck is the chapter approved mission deck, which is sold as "An essential tool-kit for creating Matched Play missions on the fly" which matched play isnt directly competitive, but the line is so thin and blurred it might as well be. Yes there are asymmetrical cards, but most people likely never tried them due to the community led normative behaviour.

The last 4 campaign books are an extremely small print run. I dont have any of them at present, how many can I buy for my casual games in 2 months time? Probably none? Interestingly they're also not listed under rules and codex in the 40k section of the webstore, whilst dice are.

GW is absolutely shaping a narrative (lol) to direct people away from any of the narrative oriented products and it works. It's equally fruitless telling people "but the rules are there, try harder" when as you note people attend tournament events because it's got explicit framework and simple expectations. Never mind the fact my hobby doesn't want to be nagging people to play a 15 game series of crusade rules with a load of book keeping they don't care for.

You just replied to my comment about how people dismiss all of it as not counting by dismissing it as not counting. It absolutely counts, you just have to use it.

 LunarSol wrote:
It absolutely counts, you just have to use it.

While I am otherwise not looking to speak on Dudeface's behalf here, their counterpoint about "the material is a small print run and rather inaccessible" is a pretty decent response to "just use it".

I used to do a lot of tabletop RPGs before covid, and core to that being practical was the longevity and availability of the books we used.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It absolutely counts, you just have to use it.

While I am otherwise not looking to speak on Dudeface's behalf here, their counterpoint about "the material is a small print run and rather inaccessible" is a pretty decent response to "just use it".

I used to a lot of tabletop RPGs before covid, and core to that being practical was the longevity and availability of the books we used.

All of this stuff is easy enough to find online though. I'm not sure about the latest book content as its definitely not where my interests lie, but locally there's a ton of support around it all that mostly revolves around a couple people that make sure they get ahold of the books and distribute materials to everyone involved. Even then, a lot of them are designed to run a lot longer than the minimum speed and have a good amount of replay value available.

Again, the primary issue is people showing up. GW puts this stuff out and everyone ignores or directly dismisses it and then we're surprised when the print runs are small? People need to vote with boots on the ground if they want these things beyond the idea of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I'll also be completely honest and say that I don't think Crusade is very well thought through.

For example, it has lots of shiny special faction rules in the codex books... but those rules are more decoration than substance. A GSC player and a Tau player fighting a Crusade campaign against each other, using their Crusade mechanics, will see both players conquer worlds or even star systems, but not the worlds you're actually fighting over. The opposing player does not interact with, or may not even be aware of the planets the Tau player may be trying to integrate using their Crusade mechanics. The GSC player may be trying to overthrow their home world, a world the Tau has no relation to or way to interact with, despite being the actual opponent. This doesn't feel all that tempting compared to, say, the more involved campaign mechanics laid out in the Horus Heresy black books.

Another big chunk of Crusade is focused on stacking various powerful upgrades on your units as you go, which again is shiny and flashy and all, but creates as many problems as it solves, especially since it results in so many potential places for things to break.

I'll be 100% honest here. I do not like Crusade, largely for the last point where the individual games start becoming increasingly less fun as things break. I don't particularly care about winning or losing, but I definitely had a mixture of bad rules and bad luck in one of the 10th Crusades that is probably among my most sour gaming experiences. Its not for me but we actually have a huge audience for it locally so I've definitely seen how it works for people.

I think the big challenge these kinds of things have is that to make the experience they imagine, they have to invest a lot more into making it happen. Like if you want to feel like you're fighting over a specific place, you have to put the effort to design tables that represent that place. You have to make terrain and objective elements that line up with the story and do all of the theater work that people fantasize about when the imagine the idea of a campaign. The rules themselves are a script, but its up to the troupe to make it a performance. It's shares a lot of the same potential as something like DnD and also many of the same pitfalls.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It absolutely counts, you just have to use it.

While I am otherwise not looking to speak on Dudeface's behalf here, their counterpoint about "the material is a small print run and rather inaccessible" is a pretty decent response to "just use it".

I used to a lot of tabletop RPGs before covid, and core to that being practical was the longevity and availability of the books we used.

All of this stuff is easy enough to find online though. I'm not sure about the latest book content as its definitely not where my interests lie, but locally there's a ton of support around it all that mostly revolves around a couple people that make sure they get ahold of the books and distribute materials to everyone involved. Even then, a lot of them are designed to run a lot longer than the minimum speed and have a good amount of replay value available.

Again, the primary issue is people showing up. GW puts this stuff out and everyone ignores or directly dismisses it and then we're surprised when the print runs are small? People need to vote with boots on the ground if they want these things beyond the idea of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I'll also be completely honest and say that I don't think Crusade is very well thought through.

For example, it has lots of shiny special faction rules in the codex books... but those rules are more decoration than substance. A GSC player and a Tau player fighting a Crusade campaign against each other, using their Crusade mechanics, will see both players conquer worlds or even star systems, but not the worlds you're actually fighting over. The opposing player does not interact with, or may not even be aware of the planets the Tau player may be trying to integrate using their Crusade mechanics. The GSC player may be trying to overthrow their home world, a world the Tau has no relation to or way to interact with, despite being the actual opponent. This doesn't feel all that tempting compared to, say, the more involved campaign mechanics laid out in the Horus Heresy black books.

Another big chunk of Crusade is focused on stacking various powerful upgrades on your units as you go, which again is shiny and flashy and all, but creates as many problems as it solves, especially since it results in so many potential places for things to break.

I'll be 100% honest here. I do not like Crusade, largely for the last point where the individual games start becoming increasingly less fun as things break. I don't particularly care about winning or losing, but I definitely had a mixture of bad rules and bad luck in one of the 10th Crusades that is probably among my most sour gaming experiences. Its not for me but we actually have a huge audience for it locally so I've definitely seen how it works for people.

I think the big challenge these kinds of things have is that to make the experience they imagine, they have to invest a lot more into making it happen. Like if you want to feel like you're fighting over a specific place, you have to put the effort to design tables that represent that place. You have to make terrain and objective elements that line up with the story and do all of the theater work that people fantasize about when the imagine the idea of a campaign. The rules themselves are a script, but its up to the troupe to make it a performance. It's shares a lot of the same potential as something like DnD and also many of the same pitfalls.

I'm glad your local situation is narratively driven and supportive of those materials, but I think you're being overly dismissive based on why this is a problem.

GW market and push the matched play and tournament style games at all turns, likewise online communities are far easier to find for competitive play and general matched play discourse. There is no support for narrative play in the app. There are supply issues accessing narrative materials.

All of these are hurdles to people engaging with the format and simply telling me to try harder, doesn't equate to them wanting to use pirated materials, lopsided games, book keep extra info and so on. People, as you keep saying, vote with their feet. They're voting to not use the materials they don't feel are accessible or supported by sticking to matched play.

I've said my piece, happy to leave it at that and yes there are materials for thise who happen to fall into a group of a like minded temperament.

I feel you can't force people to roleplay if they don't want to.

Any campaign system also always has the problem of needing people to broadly stay at the same power level - and that's difficult if you have someone who plays 3 times a week, someone who plays every other week, and someone who plays once every 3 months if they are lucky. That was true in Mordheim 25~ years ago.

The moment someone starts playing to win (even if its just a bit more than the rest) these systems also tend to collapse.

Do I prefer Grot 4 over Grot 1. Its a tricky one.

Dudeface wrote:

I'm glad your local situation is narratively driven and supportive of those materials, but I think you're being overly dismissive based on why this is a problem.

GW market and push the matched play and tournament style games at all turns, likewise online communities are far easier to find for competitive play and general matched play discourse. There is no support for narrative play in the app. There are supply issues accessing narrative materials.

All of these are hurdles to people engaging with the format and simply telling me to try harder, doesn't equate to them wanting to use pirated materials, lopsided games, book keep extra info and so on. People, as you keep saying, vote with their feet. They're voting to not use the materials they don't feel are accessible or supported by sticking to matched play.

I've said my piece, happy to leave it at that and yes there are materials for thise who happen to fall into a group of a like minded temperament.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, I've just come to recognize that these things just don't happen because the company behind them makes them happen, they happen because players and communities will them into being.

Tournaments don't happen because GW markets and makes them happen. The entire tournament scene is built, promoted and fueled by dedicated players who sink incredible amounts of time into building the scene from essentially nothing. They put in the hobby work to make enough terrain to cover enough tables. They book space, they advertise, they sacrifice weekends and they make it happen. Everything you see from GW today is basically them seeing value in that effort and piggybacking off of it.

GW puts out product to support narrative but they can't will it into popularity. It's up to players to engage with the material and bring it to life. That's always been how all of this works. If you want to see more of it, you have to engage with what's out there. Dismissing it as something no one plays just guarantees that it remains something no one plays and that GW will see no reason to invest in further.

These grots look terrific!

Of course, I think all grots look terrific, so maybe I lack critical discernment in this particular area.

 Pariah Press wrote:
These grots look terrific!

Of course, I think all grots look terrific, so maybe I lack critical discernment in this particular area.

The last one is my favorite of the bunch. Probably rate the as 4 - 3 - 1 - 2. Not a big fan of the second guy.

The Grots look great, other than the fact they have tiny ears.
They should have great floppy pointed ears.

That means they do not look like the ones I already own, so I am not interested in adding them, or changing over to the new.

Similar problem with the Intercessor & Vanguard they previewed. Those do not bring anything interesting enough to the changes they do have.

Oh well. Means I don't feel I need to get the new edition box.
I was leaning that way anyhow.
The number of actual 10th ed games that I got is not a positive indicator for purchasing the latest & greatest edition.
The churn has ground me down and spit me out.
New blood can take my place on the millstone.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Pariah Press wrote:
These grots look terrific!

Of course, I think all grots look terrific, so maybe I lack critical discernment in this particular area.

The last one is my favorite of the bunch. Probably rate the as 4 - 3 - 1 - 2. Not a big fan of the second guy.

I like them, but they could have been so much more. Like the one with the new previewed Ork Boss.

Really liking the latest Grot. I think it’s his little Biker Helm.

 skrulnik wrote:
The Grots look great, other than the fact they have tiny ears.
They should have great floppy pointed ears.

That means they do not look like the ones I already own, so I am not interested in adding them, or changing over to the new.

Someone mentioned that they're probably trying to make them distinct from Goblins. I prefer bigger ears myself, but these still work for me.

I actually always prefer different. I don't have too many Grots so getting these and mixing them in my existing units is a good way to expand out. If I had a sea of them already though I would be content to stick with what I have.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
What I'm most worried about is that the starter troops units (Intercessors for the Marines, Boyz for the Orks) will, in the box, get bog standard gun loadouts, and then when those kits release separately, they'll include another sprue with the special weapons like they did with the Termagants. And of course, that means your starter units are chumped compared to the full box units since all options are free now. That one made me very salty with 10th and is a (small) part of the reason I ended up selling my Nids. Absolutely predatory on GW's part.

Really depends on how it's done of course, but I liked getting "cheap" extra Termagant bodies from other origins (Starter Set, Hachette Partworks collection...) and being able to use the extra weapons sprue from the more expensive kit with multiple bodies. This certainly beats the alternative of, for example, the Terminators, where the push-fit version is absolutely not compatible with the multi-part kit.

CorwinB wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
What I'm most worried about is that the starter troops units (Intercessors for the Marines, Boyz for the Orks) will, in the box, get bog standard gun loadouts, and then when those kits release separately, they'll include another sprue with the special weapons like they did with the Termagants. And of course, that means your starter units are chumped compared to the full box units since all options are free now. That one made me very salty with 10th and is a (small) part of the reason I ended up selling my Nids. Absolutely predatory on GW's part.

Really depends on how it's done of course, but I liked getting "cheap" extra Termagant bodies from other origins (Starter Set, Hachette Partworks collection...) and being able to use the extra weapons sprue from the more expensive kit with multiple bodies. This certainly beats the alternative of, for example, the Terminators, where the push-fit version is absolutely not compatible with the multi-part kit.

You can generally make up a couple guys out of the multi part with special weapons and use the push fit as the grunts.

Even the grots have tactical rocks.


Guess I'll just keep waiting for a Made To Order of the Gorkamorka grots...

CorwinB wrote:


Really depends on how it's done of course, but I liked getting "cheap" extra Termagant bodies from other origins (Starter Set, Hachette Partworks collection...) and being able to use the extra weapons sprue from the more expensive kit with multiple bodies. This certainly beats the alternative of, for example, the Terminators, where the push-fit version is absolutely not compatible with the multi-part kit.

I hear you on the "cheap" minis. When 8th edition started I had a friend that wanted to update his Deathguard. We bought three starter sets (20% off coupon), sold the third rulebook and a few assorted models, split the forces. That gave me a GREAT starting point for a new Ultramarine force when combined with a handful of extra stuff I had laying around, like an Imperial Space Marine, Storm Talon, and a Rapier team.

Mod edit.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I'll also be completely honest and say that I don't think Crusade is very well thought through.

For example, it has lots of shiny special faction rules in the codex books... but those rules are more decoration than substance. A GSC player and a Tau player fighting a Crusade campaign against each other, using their Crusade mechanics, will see both players conquer worlds or even star systems, but not the worlds you're actually fighting over. The opposing player does not interact with, or may not even be aware of the planets the Tau player may be trying to integrate using their Crusade mechanics. The GSC player may be trying to overthrow their home world, a world the Tau has no relation to or way to interact with, despite being the actual opponent. This doesn't feel all that tempting compared to, say, the more involved campaign mechanics laid out in the Horus Heresy black books.

Another big chunk of Crusade is focused on stacking various powerful upgrades on your units as you go, which again is shiny and flashy and all, but creates as many problems as it solves, especially since it results in so many potential places for things to break.

So, yes... By DEFAULT, it does go the way you say: I can capture planets as a GSC player and not tell you, my Tau opponent which planet I'm attacking, and you can do the same for me. This is GW's DEFAULT because it's the least invasive way for each player to forge their own narrative without imposing anything on their opponent. In fact, if you're willing to suppress your Battle Honours and scars in order to play matched with someone, it's possible to complete objective based agendas during a matched play game and continue earning RP and XP without your opponent even knowing that you've done it.

GW made that the default for ease of use with a broad player base. But just because that's the default, it doesn't mean that this is the only way to play it.

The best book for generating a system is the Tau book, because it has you generate ALL the planets in a system at the same time. When I did this, I randomly determined there would be 7 territories. I generated them one at a time so that I could go closest to the sun to farthest. This what I got in order: Mining World, Agriworld, Fleet Installation, Military Base, Political Center, Civilian World and Trader's hub. At this point, I know how close each is to the sun, how many Military Points it has and how many Diplomacy Points it has, and I know the bonus it provides to a Tau player who brings it into pursuit of The Greater Good.

But here's the thing: Mining Worlds can ALSO be found in the GSC book. So now my Mining World (Maryllion's Hammer) has: Diplomacy Power 3, Military Power 4, it provides the Harvest Resources and Starve the War Machine assimilation abilities and the Spoils of War supply line effect, all from the Tau book. BUT I also know that its 4 Institutions are Community, Industry, Resources x2 from the GSC book. Now, there is no "Mining World" in the Tyranid book... But I know this planet is closest to the sun and has only one Community institution... This, I reason, is because miners have to conduct their activity under solar shields or die, so I figure the best match from the Nid book is Rural World. So now I also know how much Resistance it has and how much Biomass it provides for each of the three stages of Tyrannid consumption.

Now all three factions CAN choose to race each other to see whether the Tau can assimilate it before Ascension Day, and if the Cult gets big enough to attract Nids before either faction succeeds, they can begin devouring it. Narratively, because the Nids come last, the Tau and GSC escalate as they fight each other- bringing additional resources to bear due to sunk cost as the war heats up. After fighting for so long, some of the Diplomacy or Military Points represent gains made by Tau, and some of the Institutions are under the control of the GSC. So IF the Nids arrive, there force is small- it hasn't had a chance to escalate, while both the GSC and TAU have. But when the Nids devour, some of what they devour represents Tau infrastructure and some represents GSC infrastructure... So GSC and Tau STOP escalation and begin to face attrition instead. But the Nids are Devouring, so THEY escalate.

Now think of this: what if I also generate D3+1 continents on my mining world. And then 3d3 Territories per continent. And now the initial 500 pt Tau army is deployed on one territory of one continent. The Institutions and Diplomacy/ Military points are randomly distributed among the continents (but NOT specific Territories for ease of use). Factions can't travel to a different continent unless they have Aircraft on their Order of Battle. For armies without Aircraft, they can purchase passage on civilian transport for RP.

Oh yeah... And did I mention that there are six other planets... Which can now be given the exact same treatment?

Then maybe I randomly distribute Webway gates in random territories on random continents of random planets to facilitate both Realspace Raids and Fate-Based interventions which cause all flavours of Eldar to interact in battles with the other factions... Interactions which are territory neutral, with Escalation happening in Commorragh when Drukhari return with Raid Spoils or Craftworlds when Aeldari Guide Fate.

And of course there are Guard Garrisons in certain territories, Convents in others.

Is this starting to sound like a level 1-20 D&D campaign that takes six guys five years to play at a game every two weeks at someone's house, in the garage, dining room or basement to you? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

NOTES:

1) The examples provided were based on 9th ed Crusade, not 10th... Because 9th was where we started.
2) I gave you detail on how GSC, Tau and Nids interact and kinda sped through other factions to keep the post short... But TRUST me, it and hard to weave it together. I find letting people fight "NPC" battles against Player Orders of Battle is great for opportunities to open up against players who are friends and want to play, but can't commit or don't want to do Crusade book keeping... Which helps mitigate cut throat, goal vs goal narrative interaction when players need to dial back.
3) GAMES are competitive. Campaign narratives are cooperative- in the same way a D&D player will often support the GM's world building efforts by providing background... Like a map of their home town, the history of their barbarian tribe or the Royal Lineage of their City State, players can find ways to collaborate, compete or give each other space depending upon the needs of the narrative.

Think of a star system from the Tau book NOT as a campaign with winners or losers, but a shared ecosystem in which games occur.

The tiny ears on these new Grots bring to mind ear clipping on dogs, have they decided to lean into pet cruelty further with Orks for 11th? I just thing they look really odd, the models look much better than the previous set, other than the ears. A nice mix of the old Gorkamorka era metals and 2nd Ed stylings.

The new Grots seem to lean more into an evil conniving look. The current kit is a mixed bag in my opinion, with some good-looking designs (the fur-trimmed helmet is an Ork classic to me) and some really dated ones. I also never understood why the Runtherd is that fat
Interestingly, the Grot in the new warboss kit has more in common with the current design. I think I do prefer that one to the standalone ones they're showing now.
I definitely like the new Boyz, Nob, Warboss and Weirdboy though, so I'm looking forward to the full reveal later today, especially the vehicles.

Biker style helmets suggest at least one is due to be punched by a Jokaero.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Biker style helmets suggest at least one is due to be punched by a Jokaero.

To quote Captain America, I understood that reference.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Biker style helmets suggest at least one is due to be punched by a Jokaero.

To quote Captain America, I understood that reference.

Excellent!



[squeakyvoicd]I knows wot your finkin’ git. Did I’s shoot lots, or lots and lots?[/squeakyvoice]

LOL, yes he is indeed a rough customer!

With their lobes being that small they might be female grots...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
With their lobes being that small they might be female grots...

They are mushrooms.
But the ear size reduced is a weird choice for sure.
Don’t like it. The rest of the sculpt is pretty great.

Do we reckon those skulls and rocks will be modelled onto the bases? They don't seem to be in line for slottas on the models themselves.

Forget the ears, you guys are missing the important part; the anti-cat helmets are back.