Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXIX: Miracle on 39th Thread

[Forum Explorer]

Yes, thats the only sensible way to do it. But thats not what Crusade is for; you get rewards from actually playing, so forfeiting sets you back more than for regular leagues; missing advancements should screw you over, unless they're mostly irrelevant but if so why bother, just show up at the end of it all with a fully untouched supply limit meta list and sweep the win.

Sustained playing systems assume everyone is trying to get games in and not skipping them; since they have no built in mechanism for catch up or to punish runaways, people phone it in or just drop after a while. Crusade does nothing to ameliorate this, instead making the snowball effect harder.

I'm not super optimistic about Crusade, but I do have some hopes that it'll be decent. The fact that it can be played 'independently' makes me thing it'll be mostly garbage though.

[Avaris]

I'm not super optimistic about Crusade, but I do have some hopes that it'll be decent. The fact that it can be played 'independently' makes me thing it'll be mostly garbage though.

Interestingly, the fact it can be played ‘independently’ is what makes me interested in it.

All the problems being raised with stuff like Fate of Konor are due to them being a centralised campaign: you need a regular play group, committed to the same narrative, and willing and able to play on a regular basis. That’s difficult to sustain, and it makes narrative play seem difficult and unsustainable.

Crusade isn’t that. It’s not designed for a group campaign, it’s designed for an individual campaign. The owner of the army is the only person who needs to be invested in their campaign progress. It’s the same thing seen in Warcry: it’s a way of telling a story that is personal to you, but that can interact with those of others.

In theory, the system is designed so that players at different stages in their personal campaign can play each other and have a good game. The main balancing tool seems to be that you won’t necessarily use your full force, just select units from your roster to an agreed power level. Players more advanced in their campaign will have more options, but their units will also be more likely to have negative effects on them.

It won’t be balanced enough for tournament style play: different buffs and debuffs will be of varying effectiveness, and won’t be factored into a unit’s cost. You won’t be able to turn up to a tournament with a crusade army. It will also be easy to cheat, “oh yeah, I haven’t had any debuffs on my forces as I won the last 10 games with my regular opponent who you’ll never meet.” But this isn’t designed for people who want to WAAC enough to cheat.

The idea of Crusade is that it legitimises turning up to a friendly game and saying ‘hey, I’m using my Crusade list’. Having an official structure for doing so is really important, as it makes it feel more regulated: the buffs and debuffs applied to your army through the Crusade system are controlled, rather than just a free for all. One of the recent CA had rules for units gaining experience and skills, but you could never use them in a casual game because they were an add on and your opponent wouldn’t be using them. Now, there is a reasonable chance of your opponent doing the same, so you’re on the same playing field.

I don’t think we’ve seen enough of Crusade to know how well it will work, but I’ve seen enough to make me want to give it a go. It won’t be for everyone, and that’s ok, just like tournaments aren’t for everyone. But I think a lot of players will much prefer building their army towards a goal of progressing their Crusade, rather than building towards the latest tournament list.

Is it enough to justify 9th? No, that wasn’t what I was getting at with the three things I’m most excited by. This, the app, and the standardisation of tournaments by GW rather than an outside body are all things that could have been introduced independently of a new edition. 9th is justified by the rules changes, and so far I haven’t seen many that make me think ‘that is unnecessary’; they all address things I and many in the community found frustrating in 8th. But it’s a thing that, by being brought in with the new edition, will have a clear amount of support behind it, rather than being a ‘release and done’ model like Urban Conquest or any number of other ‘Narrative’ supplements. It gives a narrative option that is baked into the rules, rather than being icing on top of the cake, and that is a very important thing to have that has been missing so far.

[LeSwordfish]

But as I said, my main issue with almost all of GW's campaign systems (outside of Blood Bowl and Necromunda?) is that losers don't actually lose. They just keep playing. So there's no real incentive to win at it, because there's no consequences for losing. So people lose interest.

yes because how can you have fun knowing that someone isn't losing

[Cheesegear]

[Crusade] won’t be balanced enough for tournament a fair style of play
[...]
The idea of Crusade is that it legitimises turning up to a friendly game and saying ‘hey, I’m using my Crusade list’.

No it doesn't. It delegitmises it, because your opponent's army list has the potential to be insane. Depending on context, a player who invests heavily in Crusade-style progression, has so many oppurtunities for 'Gotch'ya' moments. "My unit has a specific upgrade that you either don't know, or didn't pay attention to, so the choice you made was made for nothing."

Having an official structure for doing so is really important, as it makes it feel more regulated

No it doesn't. It strongly favours those who have less-demanding employment, with freer times to play games.

It's exactly what happens to my gaming store, regularly. They have an event, where the more games you play, the more rewards you receive. This is to encourage players to come to the store and play games. Makes sense. But some players, can come to the store, maybe three, four or even five times during the week. They work afternoon/night shifts, so playing toy soldiers every day - especially if rewarded for doing so - is a viable option for them. Hell, maybe they're on Disability, and they don't work at all.

One of those players can reap the benefits of playing four or five games per week.
A casual, comes in on Saturday morning, to play a single game.

Oh look, it's not equal.
Yes, encouraging more games is absolutely important.
But tying an in-game, positive mechanic to simply spamming games - win or lose - is a recipe for bailing out for the players who don't play as many games.

We saw this with Shadow War; Spamming games, wins games.

Now, there is a reasonable chance of your opponent doing the same, so you’re on the same playing field.

As I said. No. If both of you have played the same amount of games...Maybe.

But I think a lot of players will much prefer building their army towards a goal of progressing their Crusade, rather than building towards the latest tournament list.

Again, you're basically saying that people with competitive army lists, can't play fluffy lists, and/or don't care about fluff.

9th is justified by the rules changes, and so far I haven’t seen many that make me think ‘that is unnecessary’

All of the rules changes so far are unnecessary... Except maybe the Terrain rules.

But it’s a thing that, by being brought in with the new edition, will have a clear amount of support behind it...

At launch, becaues it's a new product. Then it's every six months. This isn't a new concept for GW.

It gives a narrative option that is baked into the rules...

What if I build a competitive list, and give it a narrative?
Or wouldn't that be fun?
I remember playing with CA'18. Remember, this is early 2019, so my Blood Angel Captain with Thunder Hammer was really, really good, and Death Visions wasn't nerfed yet...Also, I stacked more upgrades on it.
Because Narration and Competitiveness are not mutually exclusive.

This feels like simply a step slightly more complex than Open Play, and it feels like a rules set designed to be broken, until GW recognises problems and then you end up with it looking like Matched Play, or, so complex that it's not worth doing.

[Requizen]

Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXX: "A new edition? But we JUST HAD a new edition!"

[LansXero]

yes because how can you have fun knowing that someone isn't losing

Ever had a terrible Starcraft match where your expansions all blow up, but you turtle up in your main as the other guy runs around the whole map? Mineral dries up and well you havent lost, but you cant win, its just a long time of slow tedious grinding until you get blasted away. So its the same, once a runaway gets too far, people are playing for nothing, they cant catch him, what they do wont matter. And if you go "oh just play for the fun of playing" then sure, but if so, why restrict myself to league rules or my appointed league oponent? why contort my schedule around league weeks, if Im no longer relevant to the league and I'll just play for the hell of it anyways? Thats how people end up dropping out, not because they're WAAC but because at some point it no longer matters. Crusade is set to make this even worse, snowballs are bad for the game, not good.

All the problems being raised with stuff like Fate of Konor are due to them being a centralised campaign: you need a regular play group, committed to the same narrative, and willing and able to play on a regular basis. That’s difficult to sustain, and it makes narrative play seem difficult and unsustainable.

So even bribing people with free tangible physical rewards doesnt work and yet because its in the core rulebook that fixes eveything?

Crusade isn’t that. It’s not designed for a group campaign, it’s designed for an individual campaign. The owner of the army is the only person who needs to be invested in their campaign progress. It’s the same thing seen in Warcry: it’s a way of telling a story that is personal to you, but that can interact with those of others.

What is an individual campaign? Is this 40k solo mode? Its just you making up games and progress with no checks or limitations whatsoever? Isnt that just Kill Team "all my guys are level 3 because they all rolled on hard knocks and went up, super cereal guys".

In theory, the system is designed so that players at different stages in their personal campaign can play each other and have a good game. The main balancing tool seems to be that you won’t necessarily use your full force, just select units from your roster to an agreed power level. Players more advanced in their campaign will have more options, but their units will also be more likely to have negative effects on them.

But how would you know? And why is it any easier than just playing to an agreed power level, without the book keeping and out-bsing each other on their Crusade progress?

It will also be easy to cheat, “oh yeah, I haven’t had any debuffs on my forces as I won the last 10 games with my regular opponent who you’ll never meet.” But this isn’t designed for people who want to WAAC enough to cheat.

Ok, now I can understand. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Casuals CHEAT ALL THE TIME. I run a game store, if anyone would know its me. kids cheat, even at make believe. "I hit you" "nuh huh" "yah hah" "nuh huh". THIS IS WHY WE HAVE RULES IN THE FIRST PLACE. The honor system doesnt work, it has never worked and it will never work. People cheat in beers & pretzels commander games, they fudge dice even on TTS matches, they lie and get an edge even with nothing on the line. Sometimes they cheat out of ignorance, sometimes out of malice, sometimes for the thrill of getting away with it, but they all cheat. Playing narrative doesnt make you a pure hearted saint above the mortal sin of lying; hell its not even about winning, if lets say three friends are doing the crusade thing and they wanted me in like hell Im doing the whole "individual campaign" bull****, I'll just roll results at random and phone it in. It might not give me any advantage, might even hurt my chances, but its still cheating.

The idea of Crusade is that it legitimises turning up to a friendly game and saying ‘hey, I’m using my Crusade list’. Having an official structure for doing so is really important, as it makes it feel more regulated: the buffs and debuffs applied to your army through the Crusade system are controlled, rather than just a free for all.

But who is controlling them? Arent they keeping the record themselves? Whats to keep them from just cherrypicking whatever they want and rolling with it? At that point, whats the purpose of the whole narrative thing? Yes some people play solo stuff and stay away from cheating, but people will savescum even in pointless solo games (just ask anyone whos ever played Civ or Xcom) and you expect that for some reason no casual wargamer will lie?

One of the recent CA had rules for units gaining experience and skills, but you could never use them in a casual game because they were an add on and your opponent wouldn’t be using them. Now, there is a reasonable chance of your opponent doing the same, so you’re on the same playing field.

So tell me how much Open Play you've seen, since its 'baseline' and 'legit'. Just because something is in the BRB it doesnt mean people will pick it up and use it, most of the missions there never got played and I can bet that for every person whos ever read its fluff there are 10 or more that just skimmed the main bits off lexicanum. Being in the core rulebook doesnt automatically make something popular or likely to be used.

It won’t be for everyone, and that’s ok, just like tournaments aren’t for everyone. But I think a lot of players will much prefer building their army towards a goal of progressing their Crusade

A lot of players will build their army towards what they like and what they want to paint or field. People who dont like gamey constraints wont suddenly love them because you spread a patina of fluffyness on top. You can 'progress' your Crusade on day 1, just mark all the rewards and upgrades you want, burn some imaginary units as casualties and end with your desired roster. Same as making a KT list.

9th is justified by the rules changes, and so far I haven’t seen many that make me think ‘that is unnecessary’; they all address things I and many in the community found frustrating in 8th.

People were annoyed with alpha strikes. What that you've seen so far leads you to believe alpha strikes will be less prevalent?

People were annoyed with soup. While its dead, it dunks on those with low powered codices like Daemons. Is that a good thing? Who knows.

People dont like static gunlines. But they dont like Turn 1 charges either. Both are still the same, one is better now with Obscuring terrain, the other is better now with the smaller table size.

So pray tell, what major complaint of your was adressed by 9th edition? CP farms turned into everyone being dry after a turn or two; AoS style missions with ITC-like secondaries will only exacerbate the issues from later ITC seasons. Rules bloat got worse, not better, since you now add more errata for point costs and a new rulebook since your old stuff didnt get invalidated. I cant figure which specific complaint got solved, so please enlighten me.

It will have a clear amount of support behind it, rather than being a ‘release and done’ model like Urban Conquest or any number of other ‘Narrative’ supplements. It gives a narrative option that is baked into the rules, rather than being icing on top of the cake, and that is a very important thing to have that has been missing so far.

Why is it very important? What is the actual difference between being in the main rulebook and being in a supplement? Because it cant be the need to shell out for the book, if you want people in on it splitting 40$ 3 or 4 ways is nothing. Is it because you want people to have access to it by default so no need to talk and coordinate with each other? Is that the whole improvement, just avoiding talking to people?

[LeSwordfish]

A lot of players will build their army towards what they like and what they want to paint or field. People who dont like gamey constraints wont suddenly love them because you spread a patina of fluffyness on top. You can 'progress' your Crusade on day 1, just mark all the rewards and upgrades you want, burn some imaginary units as casualties and end with your desired roster. Same as making a KT list.

But it's designed for people who won't. The storytelling aspect is the point of it.

EDIT "why would anyone ever start at level 1 in D&D? just play in a level 20 game and be way more powerful to start with lol"

[LansXero]

But it's designed for people who won't. The storytelling aspect is the point of it.

EDIT "why would anyone ever start at level 1 in D&D? just play in a level 20 game and be way more powerful to start with lol"

And how many people do you know who can move a character between tables, same items and all? If both tables are even running the same thing, more likely they have to redo it on the scratch. And then, how many will tread "the journey" back to current level instead of going "**** that" and just making a level X character?

[Fable Wright]

And how many people do you know who can move a character between tables, same items and all? If both tables are even running the same thing, more likely they have to redo it on the scratch. And then, how many will tread "the journey" back to current level instead of going "**** that" and just making a level X character?

*cough*

Adventurer's League.

It's kinda a big thing in some circles.

Start a character from any AL table, move it to any other in the Adventurer's League table in the same tier of play, and you're good.

[LansXero]

*cough*

Adventurer's League.

It's kinda a big thing in some circles.

Start a character from any AL table, move it to any other in the Adventurer's League table in the same tier of play, and you're good.

Would you say a majority of D&D play is AL play though? Because as far as we've been told, home games and homebrew / old editions both dwarf in-store / organized play tremendously. While Im sure places where it works exist, there is a reason why WotC doesnt provide stores with support for it anymore and why they cant even report them for WPN stuff, its all now handled via the third party DM's guild, because they realized that while a niche interest and good on paper, its just not going to work as a majority / massive thing.

Likewise, Im not saying absolutely nobody will play Crusade. Im saying its probably be very niche and unpopular, in need of heavy fan fixes and entirely dependant on TOs to succeed even slightly, at which point what exactly is that makes it so great to be a selling point for the new edition?

[Fable Wright]

Would you say a majority of D&D play is AL play though? Because as far as we've been told, home games and homebrew / old editions both dwarf in-store / organized play tremendously. While Im sure places where it works exist, there is a reason why WotC doesnt provide stores with support for it anymore and why they cant even report them for WPN stuff, its all now handled via the third party DM's guild, because they realized that while a niche interest and good on paper, its just not going to work as a majority / massive thing.

A majority? No. But you were asking for people who can move items, levels, and so on between tables, and a notable counterargument was posed. AL is a huge draw to a certain set of people who don't have a usual D&D group.

I'm not saying that Crusade is a good selling point for the edition. We don't even have the rules yet, after all. But the playtesters allegedly liked it, and it doesn't hurt to have an open mind. However, for all the complaints about asymmetric units and stuff... well, there's a group of people who don't mind that already? Adventurers league has also proved that a lot of people can have fun with level 5 and level 9 characters in the same party. There are people who play disproportionate WH40k games with alternate objectives like "survive three turns to win" because it makes a cool scenario. Crusade systems also mean that people with small collections might be able to try out some cool things that they might not otherwise be able to have, and you can get a fresh experience from games with a limited group of models as their powers and functions change over at time.

Are tournament/matched play competitors going to like it? Noooot likely. Are they the majority of players? I'm also going to lean towards 'not likely'. Are you going to have people whip out their extremely-snowballed Crusade teams against new players just starting the system? Yes. Are you going to have people whip out their extremely fine-tuned tournament kill lists against new players just starting the hobby? Also yes.

I just don't see a need to condemn its existence in the cradle.

[Forum Explorer]

So cover rules are out. Some highlights:

We know that Obstacles only effect Infantry, Swarms, and Beasts. No idea how close you have to be to benefit from them though.

Hard Cover gives a bonus to fighting units in melee. Which is interesting, but by example Ruins are NOT Hard Cover, so what is?

Key words in Scalable and Breachable. Presumably that means you can fight through their walls, or up levels. Not 100% positive on that though.

Key word Defensible and exposed positions; I don't have a clue what those mean.

You can't hide Titanic stuff from anything, but everything can hide from it. Ow.

Unless you are actually in the Obscuring terrain. Then people can see you. So it blocks LoS for stuff not getting a cover save, but gives a cover save to stuff that can be seen. Interesting if a little weird.

You are supposed to determine what keywords terrain has at the start of the game. So forests can be obscuring if you want, or literally nothing can block LoS if you want. I imagine everyone will just use the tournament standard or what is suggested by GW though.

[Avaris]

Terrain rules look to be an improvement on what came before, particularly with obscuring: as the WarCom article says, “the days of drawing line of sight through a gap in the wall and three consecutive windows to a unit on the opposite side of a huge building are over.” Good riddance.

That said, the article mentions at least 7 terrain traits, which I’m wondering may be too many. May not be: things like scalable and exposed position suggest to me that there are pretty no basic terrain rules at all, so the traits are necessary to explain what happens with certain interactions, but Defensible and Unstable sound like they may be adding too many things. As ever, I’m willing tonwait and see how it plays out, but it is a concern.

[Fable Wright]

Hard Cover gives a bonus to fighting units in melee. Which is interesting, but by example Ruins are NOT Hard Cover, so what is?

I'm thinking things like barbed wire. Specifically stuff that's difficult to get across.

You can't hide Titanic stuff from anything, but everything can hide from it. Ow.

Makes sense. Giant knight towering over trees can't see people hiding below the canopy. Feels weird that the cutoff is a rather arbitrary 18 wounds, though.

Unless you are actually in the Obscuring terrain. Then people can see you. So it blocks LoS for stuff not getting a cover save, but gives a cover save to stuff that can be seen. Interesting if a little weird.

I mean, it makes sense. If you're next to a forest and bombarded with missiles from above, the forest isn't doing much for you. If you're in the woods, people might be able to see you, but there's more branches to take the blow for you.

[Blackhawk748]

I mean, it makes sense. If you're next to a forest and bombarded with missiles from above, the forest isn't doing much for you. If you're in the woods, people might be able to see you, but there's more branches to take the blow for you.

Ya, but then there's more branches to hide you too. It does feel odd

[LansXero]

Ya, but then there's more branches to hide you too. It does feel odd

But sometimes there are and sometimes there arent. I mean, threading the needle through windows isnt actually gone; dont put Obscuring on the ruins and its back to true LoS. Since there are some 'examples' I guess those are the official per-piece terrain keywords, but its still gonna get very odd having the same piece doing different stuff game to game.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm thinking things like barbed wire. Specifically stuff that's difficult to get across.



Makes sense. Giant knight towering over trees can't see people hiding below the canopy. Feels weird that the cutoff is a rather arbitrary 18 wounds, though.



I mean, it makes sense. If you're next to a forest and bombarded with missiles from above, the forest isn't doing much for you. If you're in the woods, people might be able to see you, but there's more branches to take the blow for you.

I think those would all be obstacles. Which hey, maybe give obstacles hard cover. That could work.


I get why it's 18 wounds, since that's how many Morty and Magnus have. Hurts for the Triumph of Saint Katherine though.

Except being in the forest is when they can see you. It's when you are behind the forest, but not in it, that it can't see you.

[Cheesegear]

New Thread for a new edition.

ION: I'm going to hospital for a few days.