Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[Cheesegear]

The main thing I object to is how ready the community is to throw out any innovation in the game. The book isn’t even out yet. The vast majority of people saying ‘I won’t play with this’ haven’t read it, and haven’t even heard anything second hand from people who HAVE read it. If people play with it and find it sucks, great! That’s an opinion based on reality. But they’ve at least given it a go.

The problem is that people said the same thing about 9th Ed. in its entirety.
The response, of course, was 'wait and see'.
Except everything that was predicted about 9e, was true.

People can read the leaks.

But throwing it out as terrible before it is even available is entirely unreasonable IMO.

Some people haven't bought into 9th Ed. at all, because the leaks they read six months ago, were all true.
Some people don't have to wait and see to know what they want.

Player-placed terrain - no matter what form it takes - has always been unbalanced. It's been a problem since Day 1. The more control you give a player over the terrain, the more unbalanced it becomes.

My view is that this is another option in the toolbox that is 40k.

We need some plaster to patch this wall.
"I brought a hammer, so we can make the hole bigger."
...You know our job is to fix the wall, right? Not make it worse?
"It's another tool in the toolbox! What's your problem? Can't we just try the hammer, and see if it fixes the hole. You don't even know."

Both will be different challenges for players, and add variety.

Anything, adds variety.
GW could make [insert turd] and it would, empirically, 'add variety'.

It wonÂ’t work especially well for pick up games, but small local gaming groups could get a lot of use out of it.

...Until someone figures out they can model for advantage and loses games because no-one will play with them anymore.

But how will people get the chance to see if it suits them if they are put off by the howling of people who whine about everything online?

You literally described product reviews.
Do product reviews only have value, if they are positive?

[Blackhawk748]

The main thing I object to is how ready the community is to throw out any innovation in the game. The book isn’t even out yet. The vast majority of people saying ‘I won’t play with this’ haven’t read it, and haven’t even heard anything second hand from people who HAVE read it. If people play with it and find it sucks, great! That’s an opinion based on reality. But they’ve at least given it a go.

There are definite reasons, as I’ve said, why this is absolutely not ideal for every game. These are the ones based on what is certain: terrain is bulky and expensive. Also the time issue raised up thread. But the gameplay isn’t fully known yet.

It’s reasonable to be concerned about it: LansXero makes a very good point about it being another thing needing to be balanced. Adding too much to the game creates more points of failure. But throwing it out as terrible before it is even available is entirely unreasonable IMO.

Then again, I should be used to the wider community being entirely unreasonable and throwing things out before they even get a chance to read it. It’s what they do every time.

My view is that this is another option in the toolbox that is 40k. Some games will run with it, some won’t. Both will be different challenges for players, and add variety. It won’t work especially well for pick up games, but small local gaming groups could get a lot of use out of it. But how will people get the chance to see if it suits them if they are put off by the howling of people who whine about everything online?

Avaris, you weren't here for Fortification Networks in 7th. This, is Fortification Networks that are free and that you place instead of typical terrain meaning that you place them in such a way that your opponent will get 0 benefit from it. I fully expect to see even casuals place the terrain clustered around their backline with a large No Man's Land in between using they generally best terrain for them.

I know you want this to maybe be some good extra rule to use, but it's just another thing moving stuff back to 7th's massive issue of deciding the game before it was played. 7th had many games decided in list building, to the point that people could, pretty consistently, figure out the winners by just looking at their lists. This is doing more of that, and that's very bad for the health of this game

[LansXero]

I was only thinking of LoS, and how it affects Factions that can see through walls, and the Factions that can't. But you are 100% right.

It also affects melee factions (if any remained) as you can just choose not to bring anything with scaleable / breachable and for every piece to have Defensible for 5+ overwatch on the first sucker to try it (or all of them on 4+ if Tau).

This is an existing problem, with Fortifications. It's fortunate, that for the most part, most Fortifications aren't very good. However, there are notable exceptions - like Repulsors-on-a-Skyshield.

These, however, use Terrain points and do not exclude Skyshields and other Fortifications / faction terrain. So you can probably see how it compounds the issue.

I suggest maybe blacking/blurring out the word, and reposting the image?

Eh, too lazy, mod will probably scrub it later, or I will once its been read.

Pfft. Only 400 votes. Don't you know that's meaningless Lans? What would 400 people know? There are way more 40K players than that. We should just wait and see.

While that would genuinely be a good argument, those 400something do include current top rankers for the ITC and several TOs. So you know, its a smidge more representative of a competitive PoV than random schmuck getting hyped on B&C or Dakka.

The main thing I object to is how ready the community is to throw out any innovation in the game.

This isn't innovation, its a step backwards. Player placed objectives led to the 'magic box' meta near the tail end of 8th and were removed from 9th's mission design because placing objectives on inaccesible / heavily defended terrain made people stop bothering and thus brought potshot games for 4 rounds with a heavy skew towards secondaries. Also, abilities for several terrains have already been leaked; curiously there seems to be a lack of obscuring on most pieces but that matters little as they can just be boarded shut to block LoS naturally.

There are definite reasons, as I’ve said, why this is absolutely not ideal for every game.

Its a matter of differing expectations. You believe in a world of people who care about making a cool / themed / fun side of the table where this could work. But those people dont actually need a system. Points and levels and hard rules are for the kind of jerks who'll stack 2x2 ruins side by side in a wall and park basilisks behind. Or whatever the most broken set up ends up being.

But throwing it out as terrible before it is even available is entirely unreasonable IMO.

You said the same about everything related to 9th so far, how well did that turn out?

Then again, I should be used to the wider community being entirely unreasonable and throwing things out before they even get a chance to read it. It’s what they do every time.

You think anyone threw out ATVs, Erradicators or 2 damage heavy bolters? Nobody has them yet and are salivating in expectation. Hell, they're even wildly hyping 2 wound tacticals despite them being sort of traps. The 'community' throws away bad things because they are bad.

Most people were hyped for Psychic Awakening and for the most part they were well received. There is plenty of positivity all around; what there is a lack of is blind optimism and pointless hype. Those who can read can make sense of things in the wider context of a system they're experienced in and thus arrive at conclusions without needing the minutia spoon fed to them.

My view is that this is another option in the toolbox that is 40k.

How many more of those do you need? Crusade is largely forgotten. Combat Patrol is an unbalanced mess. By your own admission you never used any of the narrative content from 8th either. Just how many more tools need to gather rust in your toolbox before its enough?

But how will people get the chance to see if it suits them if they are put off by the howling of people who whine about everything online?

If only casuals had that much sense. But they dont, they'll bring it to their collections, leave it unused, then fall for the new hype wave again.

[Renegade Paladin]

I wouldn't characterize Crusade as "forgotten." It's what's got my local players the most hyped. It's limited at the moment with only core content, but there's potential there. What gets me is that even though it isn't a competitive format and isn't supposed to be a competitive format, they still banned options from Specialist Detachments. Guess my Chimeras go back in the case. It was a glorious couple of weeks.

[Avaris]

You said the same about everything related to 9th so far, how well did that turn out?

Pretty well actually. With the notable exception of missions (which are one of the more changeable parts of the game), every community I'm in apart from this one is very positive about 9th, seeing it primarily as a refinement of 8th, as it should be.

I wouldn't characterize Crusade as "forgotten." It's what's got my local players the most hyped. It's limited at the moment with only core content, but there's potential there. What gets me is that even though it isn't a competitive format and isn't supposed to be a competitive format, they still banned options from Specialist Detachments. Guess my Chimeras go back in the case. It was a glorious couple of weeks.

Yeah, Crusade is going to be a significant part of my hobby going forward. I'm really looking forward to the codexes coming out with more content for it, and expect my normal playgroup will be as well (once we're able to actually get a game in thanks to lockdown). I'm definitely going to pick up the crusade book that's due out soon.

[Brookshw]

The main thing I object to is how ready the community is to throw out any innovation in the game. The book isn’t even out yet. The vast majority of people saying ‘I won’t play with this’ haven’t read it, and haven’t even heard anything second hand from people who HAVE read it. If people play with it and find it sucks, great! That’s an opinion based on reality. But they’ve at least given it a go.

Leaving aside Cheese/Lans/Black's points about past as predicate, what is it that you're suggesting people do here? As a non-SM player, do I need to invest my funds in a book for access to a system (not to mention terrain) when I don't have the codices for the factions I do play? This edition currently excludes/disadvantages a number of players, why should they (including me) have any interest or excitement at this point about an opportunity to spend more money with such limited context on where I stand in this edition and my current sunk costs?

[Cheesegear]

I wouldn't characterize Crusade as "forgotten." It's what's got my local players the most hyped.

We know that currently, Crusade is a broken mess. So yes, people have forgotten about it.
We're currently waiting for GW to 'fix it one day maybe'. Leaks and teases about what's in Beyond the Veil is surprisingly sparse.

Spoiler: Crusade

Show

...We hope.

Yeah, Crusade is going to be a significant part of my hobby going forward. I'm really looking forward to the codexes coming out with more content for it...

And yet you know nothing about it.
We have decent leaks about what's inside the Terrain pack. But if we're negative about it, we're wrong?
You know nothing at all about Crusade content - especially about stuff inside a Codex - and yet you already know that you're buying in?

To me, that seems...Not correct.

In the same way that I was raging about Guilliman being nerfed and 8th Ed. sucks because Formations were really fun and added a new aspect to the hobby side of things, because it gave clear, mechanical advantages to playing fluffy armies, and how dumb horde-based scoring was, and how bad the new To Wound chart was, and why doesn't Cover even do anything, and why does GW keep overpricing 2+ saves?
Believe me. I remember saying that 8th Ed. sucked. Chalk from cheese, by the end of it.

I changed my tune, six, twelve months later. And now we're at the point where I want to go back to 8th Ed. because it was so good. But I changed my tune, when the tune was changed (i.e; Around FAQ 1, April '18) - not before.

[Avaris]

Leaving aside Cheese/Lans/Black's points about past as predicate, what is it that you're suggesting people do here? As a non-SM player, do I need to invest my funds in a book for access to a system (not to mention terrain) when I don't have the codices for the factions I do play? This edition currently excludes/disadvantages a number of players, why should they (including me) have any interest or excitement at this point about an opportunity to spend more money with such limited context on where I stand in this edition and my current sunk costs?

Right now, what I want people to do is stop complaining about how the latest release from GW is going to ruin the game before it has even been released, and when it does release to consider it with an open mind. I'm certainly not asking people to invest in it sight unseen: just see the full picture before criticising.

Don't buy it on preorder (unless you're really keen), and don't make any purchasing or play decision before it has released. But then, if someone in your play group has it, give it a go, and help others do the same. This is absolutely an expensive buy-in: I happen to have enough personal scenery I can give it a go, but not everyone I play with does, so I expect I'll be lending stuff to them to try it out. The most toxic thing I'm seeing around this is as illustrated in LansXero's screenshot: 'I won't ever consider playing this'. It happens time and again in this hobby, Crusade being another recent example. People see a glimpse of something, see something in it they don't like, and shut it down entirely.

Not everything is for everyone. Your hobby decisions don't affect me, and I will still likely play and use this new content. But what we get time and again in this hobby is a few loud people complaining about everything that doesn't fit their very narrow understanding of how the game should be. And that then becomes the established truth: "big name youtuber says this is bad, therefore it is bad". It doesn't fit how they want to play the game, sure, but it will fit other people.

Edit: ultimately, it's once again the optimist vs pessimist thing. I don't see any point in complaining about something that isn't out yet and that I haven't yet experienced, and am able to look to the future and see that there is added content that may be of interest, such as the Crusade stuff coming out over time. It won't all be perfect, some of it I may even hate, but I want to approach it with a view to finding the enjoyment that I can, rather than finding the thing that I will hate.

[Cheesegear]

Right now, what I want people to do is stop complaining about how the latest release from GW is going to ruin the game before it has even been released, and when it does release to consider it with an open mind. I'm certainly not asking people to invest in it sight unseen: just see the full picture before criticising.

We criticise what we can see. Just as we praise what we can see.

LansXero brought up an interesting counter-point:
Invader ATVs, Eradicators, and Firstborn with +1 Wound (including Terminators), and certain Heavy and Melee weapons receiving significant upgrades across all Factions.

No-one seems to be complaining about those things. Even though we don't know the full picture.
EDIT: People are complaining about Firstborn getting +1 Wound, but they're being drowned out by all the *shock* positivity.

People like what they like, and they don't like what they don't like.

Firstborn getting a +20% points hike, doesn't matter, 'cause Terminators will be 3 Wounds, and Power Swords will be +1S. Sounds great. I don't need to know anything because I know that Zephyrm are going to hit like trucks now 'cause Power Swords are getting a buff.

Player-placed terrain? I don't need to know anything more because I already know what that looks like. I find it very difficult, after 20 years of playing this game, where I can envision player-placed terrain being a good thing. You will have to convince me with something amazing, to get me on that train. And I just don't think that thing, exists.

Don't buy it on preorder (unless you're really keen), and don't make any purchasing or play decision before it has released.

Don't preorder anything, ever. Even if you're really keen.
Day 1 nerf.
Two-week nerf.
GW is now at the point where Codecies don't even have 15 minutes of perfection anymore.

Crusade being another recent example. People see a glimpse of something, see something in it they don't like, and shut it down entirely.

People have seen what's in the rulebook, and it's bad.
If you've seen something else, let me know.

But what we get time and again in this hobby is a few loud people complaining about everything that doesn't fit their very narrow understanding of how the game should be.

I need you to actually look at what people are saying - not just the tone they say it in.
I think you'll find that most people complaining, would really like the game to be fair. If your counterpoint, is that you think the game should be unfair and/or that it doesn't matter that it is, you are never, ever going to be happy. Because most people, don't like when something is unfair.

Hence people complaining about Astartes getting everything before every other Faction. It's not fair.
"I'm tired of non-Space Marine players complaining about how they don't play Space Marines." ...Really?

We're just lucky, however, that Astartes players (as a group), outnumber non-Astartes players.

So for every Ork player saying the Invader ATV is broken and should never see the light of day. We have 15 Astartes players saying it's the best thing ever and they're going to buy 9 on Day 1.

If something is good, people will say it's good.
If something is bad, people will say it's bad.

If more people are leaning one way than the other, that should tell you something, even if you don't agree with them.

I - a Space Marine player! - am quite upset that the Invader ATV is a thing that exists. But I can very easily see why people are excited for it.
I - a Space Marine player! - am very happy that Firstborn (including Terminators) are getting +1 Wound. But I can very easily see why non-Astartes players are very upset by it.

[Squark]

Player placed terrain is really only for that akward middle tround of competitiveness where you can't get a neutral ajudicator (or rely on players to be relatively impartial in their terrain placement). In a more relaxed setting, you can rely on experienced players to focus on best practices like limiting sightlines and ensuring an even spread. In a tournament, a judge will do that for you. But if two players can't agree on how the battlefield should he set up, "I go, You go" terrain placement is the best option. Of course, most of the games I know of let each player choose from any of the remaining terrain pieces (jncluding what their opponent brought), which doesn't seem to be the case here.

[Dragonus45]

I wouldn't characterize Crusade as "forgotten." It's what's got my local players the most hyped. It's limited at the moment with only core content, but there's potential there. What gets me is that even though it isn't a competitive format and isn't supposed to be a competitive format, they still banned options from Specialist Detachments. Guess my Chimeras go back in the case. It was a glorious couple of weeks.

Crusade is also what I am most hyped about, if anything gets me to finish buying this sisters army it will be those rules.

[Forum Explorer]

How many more of those do you need? Crusade is largely forgotten. Combat Patrol is an unbalanced mess. By your own admission you never used any of the narrative content from 8th either. Just how many more tools need to gather rust in your toolbox before its enough?



If only casuals had that much sense. But they dont, they'll bring it to their collections, leave it unused, then fall for the new hype wave again.

We're waiting to start a Crusade league in our own meta. We were hoping to start in October, but with cases rising again, that looks like it will be pushed back again.

[LansXero]

We've had Konor, escalation systems and the content from Vigilus plus the stuff in the CAs.

Narrative ongoing events die quickly then are only ever brought about to 'reignite' a scene or to 'lean into' a new thing, then they fizzle half way through.

But Im sure Crusade will be totally different and super special and this time around things will go another way

[Renegade Paladin]

Crusade isn't comparable to any of those because 1.) it isn't a one-time global narrative event and 2.) it isn't intrinsically tied to one of GW's narratives. (The upcoming supplement seems to be, but at its core the Crusade system isn't.) My local meta has seen narrative campaigns of our own design through to the (Apocalyptic, if you take my meaning) end multiple times; it's just that GW's attempts at writing narrative events (especially the Vigilus model where they attempted to impose campaign phase-specific special rules on only certain armies, penalizing you for not playing them or, worse, penalizing you FOR playing them) tend to be bad.

[Avaris]

Crusade isn't comparable to any of those because 1.) it isn't a one-time global narrative event and 2.) it isn't intrinsically tied to one of GW's narratives. (The upcoming supplement seems to be, but at its core the Crusade system isn't.) My local meta has seen narrative campaigns of our own design through to the (Apocalyptic, if you take my meaning) end multiple times; it's just that GW's attempts at writing narrative events (especially the Vigilus model where they attempted to impose campaign phase-specific special rules on only certain armies, penalizing you for not playing them or, worse, penalizing you FOR playing them) tend to be bad.

This. Crusade starts from a fundamentally different place to the previous narrative material, that is why I am interested in it. Previously, narrative was entirely focused on 'get a group together'. You could use the missions and special rules for one off games if you wanted, but it was much better if you could get a campaign going. Having 20 players significantly changes the individual player experience to having 2. Think of it as 'centrally organised'.

Instead, Crusade's organisation is dispersed. You don't need a central organiser to run a campaign, you each do your own thing. The experience for each individual player is the same regardless of whether the play group is 2 or 20. That, to me, is a massive improvement; it is much easier for me to get my playgroup to say 'sure, lets make this game Crusade', than it is to get them to say 'sure, lets do a centrally organised campaign'. It also doesn't overly compete with other game styles in the way a campaign would: if you're running a campaign it's all or nothing, every game in the game group should be directed towards it. With Crusade, you have the option of saying 'actually, would you mind if we have a game using the GT scenarios instead? I want to practice for the tournament' without feeling you're giving up as much.

[Blackhawk748]

People are complaining about Firstborn getting +1 Wound, but they're being drowned out by all the *shock* positivity.

People like what they like, and they don't like what they don't like.

Firstborn getting a +20% points hike, doesn't matter, 'cause Terminators will be 3 Wounds, and Power Swords will be +1S. Sounds great. I don't need to know anything because I know that Zephyrm are going to hit like trucks now 'cause Power Swords are getting a buff..

I don't think I heard a single person complain about Firstborn getting a second Wound. A bit of people talking about there maybe being ab etter solution, but everyone agreed it was the simplest.

As for Power Sword buffs, nothing but good things from people who have Power Swords, and no comments from people who don't.

[Squark]

This. Crusade starts from a fundamentally different place to the previous narrative material, that is why I am interested in it. Previously, narrative was entirely focused on 'get a group together'. You could use the missions and special rules for one off games if you wanted, but it was much better if you could get a campaign going. Having 20 players significantly changes the individual player experience to having 2. Think of it as 'centrally organised'.

Instead, Crusade's organisation is dispersed. You don't need a central organiser to run a campaign, you each do your own thing. The experience for each individual player is the same regardless of whether the play group is 2 or 20. That, to me, is a massive improvement; it is much easier for me to get my playgroup to say 'sure, lets make this game Crusade', than it is to get them to say 'sure, lets do a centrally organised campaign'. It also doesn't overly compete with other game styles in the way a campaign would: if you're running a campaign it's all or nothing, every game in the game group should be directed towards it. With Crusade, you have the option of saying 'actually, would you mind if we have a game using the GT scenarios instead? I want to practice for the tournament' without feeling you're giving up as much.

So everyone is piecing together their own little story from the random pick-up games they play? I... don't see the appeal, honestly. Without some coordinated narrative framework as a backdrop, everyone's in their own little isolated bubble that just happens to bump into someone else's bubble without any greater rhyme or reason.

[LeSwordfish]

So everyone is piecing together their own little story from the random pick-up games they play? I... don't see the appeal, honestly. Without some coordinated narrative framework as a backdrop, everyone's in their own little isolated bubble that just happens to bump into someone else's bubble without any greater rhyme or reason.

It's less overall narratively satisfying, but does have the advantage that you don't need a single consistent group for it. I have the occasional local/store game and also go to big narrative-focussed events with friends, so it's more or less perfect for me - I can keep my army ticking over and developing whenever I get a narrative pickup game, and then they take part in Kronus-like group narratives when I see my friends. (Works the same way for War Cry).

[LansXero]

So everyone is piecing together their own little story from the random pick-up games they play? I... don't see the appeal, honestly. Without some coordinated narrative framework as a backdrop, everyone's in their own little isolated bubble that just happens to bump into someone else's bubble without any greater rhyme or reason.

Thats just Avaris' idea. Even in this thread everyone is referring to Crusade as campaign / league, and I dont really see the appeal of having rules for random 'fluffed' games that dont belong to an overarching effort; however, Crusade has nothing for said overarching effort, and the runaway / snowball nature of the rules it does have directly work against it. If people want to get hyped and pretent they'll be okay with it they can do that, but they and I know everything fizzles out once there is a clear winner / time commitments get heavy

Also, in the 'backwards steps are not innovation', I dont know how hard it was to just do this:

Spoiler: Kill Team Terrain Set Ups

Show

but for 40k instead. No more player placed anything, make a dozen or more of these for the assortment of GW terrain there is, keep things balanced for people. Dont do something stupid like tying them to specific missions of course.

[Requizen]

So everyone is piecing together their own little story from the random pick-up games they play? I... don't see the appeal, honestly. Without some coordinated narrative framework as a backdrop, everyone's in their own little isolated bubble that just happens to bump into someone else's bubble without any greater rhyme or reason.

It sounds very similar to Warcry's narrative system, which was quite popular, but 40k isn't Warcry.

The idea that it's your dudes and their story across a galaxy of war, and they pick up little stories across the way of how they fought Tyranids here, and then Dark Eldar there, sounds cool... but at the end of the day, the people who keep those little stories written down don't need a framework to do it. They're going to keep their own narrative themselves, and the people who don't care about narrative, won't play it. Or, as I assume GW hopes, they'll buy the book, play it exactly once for a release campaign, and then shelve it indefinitely.

[Renegade Paladin]

Crusade doesn't really need to have a campaign system contained within itself; GW has published SO many over the years that you can just slot Crusade over one of them. Ladder leagues are the easiest thing in the world. Map based campaigns work too, as do branching campaigns, etc. But baking any one of those into Crusade's core rules would limit the application of Crusade in the minds of players. If they had a ladder league system printed in it but an organizer wanted to use the Crusade rules for a narrative campaign, he'd have to buck everyone arguing that the rulebook says they aren't meant to be used that way. Leaving it campaign system agnostic broadens its application.

[Dragonus45]

So everyone is piecing together their own little story from the random pick-up games they play? I... don't see the appeal, honestly. Without some coordinated narrative framework as a backdrop, everyone's in their own little isolated bubble that just happens to bump into someone else's bubble without any greater rhyme or reason.

It's about getting to tell the story of My Dudes with my army that I make over time even if there isn't a wider narrative framework and also being able to bring them into one almost whenever.

[LansXero]

It's about getting to tell the story of My Dudes with my army that I make over time even if there isn't a wider narrative framework and also being able to bring them into one almost whenever.

And you need an structured system for that because?

[Dragonus45]

And you need an structured system for that because?

Because it's nice and I want one.

[Renegade Paladin]

Because the rules reflect the story of Your Dudes. This Tactical squad is full of veteran Firstborn who have seen and done it all? Then they act like it, have skills that reflect it, and scars to prove it.

Now, the reason most people are talking about Crusade in the context of narrative events rather than how it's presented in the rulebook is for the very simple reason that without an administered event with records, there's nothing stopping you from filling out whatever you want on your Crusade cards. Taking Crusade armies from place to place and playing in pickup Crusade games is prone to the problem that makes RPG organized play (Pathfinder Society, Adventurer's League, etc) have the GM sign the certificates saying your character played X scenario, got Y experience, and Z treasure; because without that layer of accountability it's super easy to just make up whatever you want.

[Squark]

Now, the reason most people are talking about Crusade in the context of narrative events rather than how it's presented in the rulebook is for the very simple reason that without an administered event with records, there's nothing stopping you from filling out whatever you want on your Crusade cards. Taking Crusade armies from place to place and playing in pickup Crusade games is prone to the problem that makes RPG organized play (Pathfinder Society, Adventurer's League, etc) have the GM sign the certificates saying your character played X scenario, got Y experience, and Z treasure; because without that layer of accountability it's super easy to just make up whatever you want.

I think this touches on what doesn't work for me; not so much the risk of someone making things up, but a disconnect that arises from this sort of thing. My opponent plays as much a role in shaping the story as I do, but without the shared framework of a narrative event, all those crusade goodies feel devoid of context. Sure, sometimes the rules will reflect the basic story by themselves, but other times, I'm just staring down a mob of Boyz who re-roll 1's to hit. Why do they do that? I don't know, and the battle where they acquired that skill may have happened miles away with someone I've never met. That feels different from, "Oh, yeah, they leveled up in my last campaign game against John," *waves to the table across the store*, "where they rolled an unbelievable amount of 6s to hit"

[Cheesegear]

This. Crusade starts from a fundamentally different place to the previous narrative material, that is why I am interested in it. Previously, narrative was entirely focused on 'get a group together'. You could use the missions and special rules for one off games if you wanted, but it was much better if you could get a campaign going. Having 20 players significantly changes the individual player experience to having 2. Think of it as 'centrally organised'.

That's where Crusade really, really shines.
You get 9 friends together, you play a game or two a fortnight, and you write a paragraph or two about each game you play. Post it for the group, and everyone learns every player's heroes and each player picks up villains and you can make bounties and a lot of things happen that significantly increase the enjoyment of the game because everyone is invested.

Sounds amazing. I want in.

Instead, Crusade's organisation is dispersed. You don't need a central organiser to run a campaign, you each do your own thing.

And that's the major problem. The way that Crusade has been marketed, is its central downfall - in the same way that happened to Kill Team. And it has the exact same problem that every progressive game (Necromunda, Mordheim, Blood Bowl, etc.), has:

I just have to trust you, that your progression is legit.

See, you know what's great about the above, with you and 9 friends? You all know each other, presumably can contact each other, and thus can verify anything that crops up that seems suspicious.

Now, COVID is happening, so there are lockdown restrictions, but, in a normal world, when Crusade was written, the idea was marketed that someone from two states away, someone from another country, even, could come into my store, and play a game of Crusade, and nothing would change. I live 'within driving distance' (in Australian reckoning), of the southern hemisphere's largest GW store (lol, it can could only hold 24-player tournaments)...Or rather, some of the most competitive players in my country live 'within driving distance' (in Australian reckoning), of me and my local store and club.

I've played against a lot of WAAC-players in my time (including in Mordheim and Blood Bowl both); City boys who come up and scope out the bush talent.
Hmm...Your Roster is incredibly good, and you have no niggles at all, on anyone? You're either incredibly lucky, or you're dishonest. And I have no way of proving one way or the other. And quite infamously, at a certain point in all of GW's progressive games, whatever rubber band mechanics might exist, don't work, once the power gap reaches a certain point. So it kind of behooves me just to hurt your models, rather than try and win. Except I know that it's pointless, 'cause I know that as soon as you walk out the door, the niggles on your models will somehow vanish.

Here's the second kicker:
I don't know you. I wasn't involved. I'm simply not invested in Your Dudes. I have no interest in playing a game against Your Dudes because to me, it's meaningless. Unless of course, we are playing a campaign and I evolve, together, with you. Furthermore, if you are an out-of-towner, and you present me with a 6-page document of all your escapades so far and why I should be interested in Your Dudes...I'm not reading that. I simply have no investment in playing against your Crusade army unless I am part of the same Crusade as you. That is, we're both part of the same Escalation Campaign or I don't care about Your Dudes.

What GW should have said:
Crusade is an official (hopefully) balanced ruleset for an Escalation Campaign. Whether you're playing a two-day tournament, or a months-long Galaxy-spanning campaign, this product is for you. It's especially useful if you and a few friends want to start new armies together, and that way you can grow your collections using a fun narrative style that keeps every one of you invested so that none of you ever drop out and abandon your friends.

People like escalation campaigns. We're making an official packet for it.

What GW actually said:
Play an Escalation Campaign where your only accountability is yourself, and your Roster is permanent! So you can take it anywhere - well, not during COVID-times - and people who don't even know you will definitely trust you!

[Squark]

Hmm...Your Roster is incredibly good, and you have no niggles at all, on anyone? You're either incredibly lucky, or you're dishonest. And I have no way of proving one way or the other. And quite infamously, at a certain point in all of GW's progressive games, whatever rubber band mechanics might exist, don't work, once the power gap reaches a certain point. So it kind of behooves me just to hurt your models, rather than try and win. Except I know that it's pointless, 'cause I know that as soon as you walk out the door, the niggles on your models will somehow vanish.

You're thinking too small. I'm sure Gretchin/Plaguebearers/insert filler unit here will have tons of battle scars- Conveniently reducing the CP you get playing against them!

[LansXero]

Here's the second kicker:
I don't know you. I wasn't involved. I'm simply not invested in Your Dudes. I have no interest in playing a game against Your Dudes because to me, it's meaningless.

And thats the part where it all falls apart. Everyone wants (or should want) to be the hero, the protagonist. We only care about that which tangentially brushes us, and even that takes commitment and effort. This is not being a selfish jerk, its neuroscience; thats why most of the human beings in your life are not humans at all but caricatures of their function. 'garbage man' 'bob in accounting' 'weird tau guy' are not people, they are 2D cutouts as shorthand because brain space is at a premium. Likewise, investment in narratives can only be stretched so far; nobody likes the weird guy who has a novel worth of backstory for his random lvl 1 character, why would they suddenly do for your crusade army's long and storied record?

[Avaris]

A lot of the disconnect with regard to Crusade comes from the different routes people take into the hobby, and the experiences we have of other hobbies. In my case, I’m primarily a roleplayer, and telling the story with its ups and downs matters to me. More than that, I do live action roleplay, where you simultaneously have 1000s of people playing, each individually responsible and trusted to stick to the rules. I’ve been in battles with upwards of 500 people a side, each of whom has sole responsibility for tracking their own abilities and health. It would be trivial for someone to cheat and give themselves extra hits or abilities, but generally people don’t. And if they do, it’s not really me who is losing out: there is fun gameplay in defeat. Sure, our paths may cross, and they may win by cheating, but the chances of me actually losing a character from that is low, and my story still progresses.

So too with Crusade: there aren’t really significant permanent penalties to losing, and any scar can be paid off if you really want to. So what do I lose if my opponent is cheating on their Crusade listing? I may lose the game, sure, but I still get experience from playing that game. And as someone who is interested in the progression of my army, that matters much more than winning or losing in that one particular case.

I’m not saying people won’t cheat. I’m saying that them doing so doesn’t overly matter to what is enjoyable about Crusade, and also that they are robbing themselves of the core experience of it. And in my experience, far more people will be playing Crusade for that narrative experience than for the opportunity to take advantage of the rules and curbstomp noobs.

It’s not for everyone certainly. You may not see the appeal. In which case, don’t play it! It’s not for you. But please stop saying it’s pointless or shouldn’t exist because of that. There are products and rulesets put out for the things you enjoy, and others don’t: I couldn’t care less about Tournament packs, but I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist. The hobby is a very broad church, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Just let people have what they like.