ThePenitentOne

The same information can be gleaned from Battletome VS. Codex sales. It doesn't track directly- in god-based based books (which both systems have embraced), you can't tell directly whether people with either army like that army specifically for its Daemonic units vs. the Legion troops or Mortal Followers. But it's a pretty close approximation. You also have the hit count for DLC for both armies to go on. Which may yield more information by looking at whether the detachments used focus on the Daemonic units. On a side note: I gotta get the Slaanesh Endless spell giant head before it disappears- someday there will be a knight conversion that uses it, but I doubt I'll get around to it before the piece disappears. It'll be the knight that I use for my EC allied unit.

My post was heavy handed. What I'd really rather see is a gradual, narrative based intro of Xenos factions into Heresy era games. You can maintain the timeline- both Eldar and Orks existed during the Heresy if I'm not mistaken. I'd pick one of those two species and add them for an edition- not this one... That's too soon. The game needs to work the narrative to a post Heresy Era where the absence of the Warmaster leaves room for the Imperium to deal with other threats.... And then add whichever Xenos faction is most appropriate to the Lore of the Immediate Post-Heresy. Meanwhile, LI could be given Xenos factions faster- this is the precedent with Epic if I remember correctly. I didn't play it, so memory is imperfect at best, but I believe it was pure Imperial VS. Chaos to start, and Xenos were added later; I'm not sure if Eldar and Orks were added separately or all at once, but I think Tyranids were a later stand-alone release. I find the style of the Epic Hierophant to be far superior to the FW 40k interpretation... And if a faithful reproduction came to LI, I'd be severely temped to buy in. And if BFG ever happens, it can launch with Xenos. Normally I'm better about suggesting the elimination of any content, because obviously, somebody loves it. Apologies for being that guy. As for going matched only: because the best Crusade content is imbedded in the BRB and dexes, it doesn't really take up release slots. When it comes to the Crusade campaign books, I actually sort of agree; all dexes should always be published before any campaign book, Matched or Crusade. In truth, 9th's campaign books were better for including both formats, the issue is that there were too many: every Crusade season got two Hardcover books that covered both systems, two Crusade mission packs and one Matched mission pack. One campaign book per season with content and missions for both Matched and Crusade PLZ, with none of them being released til the end of the dex cycle, and a minimum of two full seasons before the edition change. And you know what? Yes, my motive for the over-the-top hot take WAS jealousy. The new Heresy Admech is SOOOO good! I'd kill to use it in 40k, where Admech only has a couple of units I like anywhere near as much (Sicarians, Ironstriders). Similarly, as often as I post anti-marine, I do love me some Grey Knights and Deathwatch, and the transport capacity of the Spartan really lends itself to a mobile Watch Fortress or GK Hunter Cell. I'm toying with the idea of using Solar Auxilia for Counts-As-Guard with an allied Inquisition force where the Auxilia models, while using guard rules, would actually fluff up as the dedicated house troops of the Inquisitor. I'd rather just have Heresy become something that I can either participate in directly, or at least use in 40k (selected units only if need be), but preferably both. Heresy IS a net-good for the 40k universe- it just needs to be more accessible to me than a small handful of usable Legends cards in order for me to be able to celebrate it as much as it deserves. Truth be told I am kind of excited about a new edition, but it's bitter sweet- beautiful models that make me so grateful they exist (and in plastic!), but the knowledge that'll only ever be able to use a few if any. I DO want to see where they go.... I just feel excluded, and sometimes that comes across more than any enthusiasm.

I'm torn on this. I see the advantage of 40k specific kits, and sure, I'd like to see ranged options... But daemons using technology is weird- the realm that is their natural environment is made up of the dreams, nightmares and emotions of sentient species in realspace. What makes them unique among factions is that they don't manufacture tools in the same way; if a Slaaneshi Daemon is riding a chariot, both rider and chariot are products of the same nightmare. Certainly Vashtorr blurs the lines, and perhaps over time the narrative could have him develop one tech-daemon unit aligned with each of the four powers; that unit could be a part of Vastorr's detachment or used as a unit in a standard Daemon force. But if ALL Daemon units suddenly become just another tech-using army, they aren't really Daemons anymore- they'd be more akin to Xenos. Also, while GW IS separating their game systems, I believe that's a mistake. This is an expensive game, and while many players are content enough with the cost that they continue to buy, there are many,many more who would play if they could afford it. Allowing a kit to be used in multiple systems adds value for the money and can entice some of those potential players to take the leap. I have a modest force of Slaanesh Daemons, and I'd planned to expand them. And being a Crusade player, having heard about Path to Glory, I would have looked into AoS. I'm too poor to buy models from each line, but I would have bought the AoS BRB and Battletome required to use my Daemons; I also would likely have expanded the force to be larger than it will be if it's restricted to 40k. I'm not sure how they've manged to convince shareholders that cross-platforming is bad. Do you have any idea how much money I'd spend on HH Admech if they were usable in 40k? Generally, shareholders don't like it when the companies they invest in choose to throw away money making opportunities.

Naw, if it was a perfect world, no new games would be set in the Heresy era, and those that currently are would add xenos factions. Some Heresy Era units would also be added to 40k dexes (I'm cool with Legends, but a lot of folks only play pick-up games in spaces where Legends isn't an option).

I really like this team, but in 40k it feels like most of these models should be character, not a combined unit.

Except that chaos cult legions in 10th STILL have subfactions (they're just called detachments now) so that's not an improvement over 9th, and the faction with the least amount of strats in 10th (Sisters I think) still has 24, and the faction with the most (Space Marines) has 42... It's just that you can only use six in any given game, which you were always free to do in 9th, and which, realistically, most people DID actually do, because building an army that could effectively use all 40 was damned near impossible. (You yourself even tacitly acknowledge this by saying "including some strats that you could use on the second Thursday of the month on any unit within 3 inches of another unit that has an “i” in its name." What that means when said in different words is that although these strats are in your book, they aren't relevant to your game in any meaningful way... Unless you chose ONLY units that had the letter "i" in their name, always moved them in battlegroups of 2-3 units and always used the 2nd Thursday of the month Secondary/ Agenda... Which is kinda the same thing you do when you build a list that is tailored to the detachment you're using.) Now, in 9th it might have been more like 8 or 10 rather than 6, so there's some simplification in 10th, but not as much a difference as the "New Ed Better/ Old Ed Bad" propaganda would have you believe. Plus, in 9th, psychic powers weren't just weapons or armour, and different psykers of the same type could actually have different abilities, units had more equipment options , and equipment options were also more meaningful because they came with costs. And again (to bring it back to topic), the best part of 9th was that these interminable, seemingly weekly ridiculous balance updates could be ignored by people with the good sense to exclusively play narrative Crusade escalation campaigns and leave matched play to the meta chasing tourney crowd instead of forcing themselves to play exclusively Matched and whining incessantly about how much doing so sucked. And yes, I know that last clause sounded really harsh, so before anyone drags out the pitchforks, let me walk it back a bit by saying I know that for some people without a circle of like minded friends, or space to play at home or a store full of open minded people, playing Matched was either the only, or the easiest option.

This game, I presume is subject to the same flaws as all Heresy era games, namely: Any game that doesn't include Xenos and Sisters is ultimately more boring and dull than any game that does, and as such, shouldn't be allowed to take staff, resources and release slots away from more interesting and inclusive games. I know that this hot-take will sound offensive to the ears of people who ARE fans of the era, so to walk it back a bit, at least in the table-top miniature game, some of the models still have 40k utility- I loves me some Spartan (for Deathwatch and GK- the only two marine factions that I'm remotely interested in) and Arvus. And the preexistence of Marine/ Admech/ Guard models in LI scale does provide a basis for an eventual 40k (ie. interesting) game in that scale. And I suppose it is possible that elements of this RPG game might similarly enrich the more interesting and inclusive 40k RPGs made by the same company.

@phandaal Thanks for the clarification, and sorry I misinterpreted your post. I feel a bit silly now, but I'm also happy to have found another like-minded poster. Great point about narrative missions being closer to evergreen. I've found Crusade rules in general to be at least somewhat edition agnostic. To bring it back to topic, even though balance updates (including this one) DO apply to Crusade games, no update thus far (including this one) has every modified any Crusade content. Obviously, the add-on content provided by White Dwarf for Sisters, Kroot and GSC is a kind of update, but it didn't modify any of the existing content, merely added to it.

We've been warned about staying on topic, but like I wrote in my response to a similar line of thought on page three of this thread, I'm compelled to respond to assertions like this, and I'll challenge it every time I see it no matter where I see it. To at least somewhat address the topic, I will say this: it is certainly true that BALANCE UPDATES are skewed to tournament play. They take their data from tournaments in order to make the adjustments... And admittedly, it's the easiest place to get such data- Narrative garage hammer heroes don't report their data to GW. To that, I will add: very few Warcom articles (relatively speaking) are targeted to Narrative play, and while White Dwarf's Crusade content is always top-notch, it doesn't appear in every issue. But that's about as far down your rabbit hole as I can go, because Crusade really and truly is the most ambitious and fully integrated narrative system that GW has ever attempted in 40k, and it's only been around for the last two editions. The Grand Narrative runs in parallel with the Grand Tournament. There have been three Crusade only books released this edition, and only two matched play decks, one of which has actually been adapted for Crusade play IN ADDITION to the corresponding Crusade book. Which means, yes, just like there was in 9th, there are actually more resources for 10th that include Crusade content than there are that don't- the strongest evidence there is that GW provides equal (or greater) support for 40k narrative play than they do for tournament play. Period. Full Stop. If you choose not to play it, that doesn't change the fact that it exists. If your group or store won't let you play it, that also doesn't change the fact that it exists. Therefore, neither of these points are relevant as a basis to assert that 9th or 10th is skewed to tournament play. To come back to the on-topic piece above, I will say that 9th was better at restricting the interminable balance updates to Matched Play only which insulated and isolated Crusade from balance patches... Which do feel tournament oriented. I do wish this practice had continued into 10th- changing points every three months creates roster/supply limit incongruities which matter far more to me than any supposed balance gains to be had by making this unit 10 points more expensive and that unit 10 points cheaper. Heck, slap one Battle Honour on any "weak" unit and it might just take the Pepsi challenge with someone else's elite but inexperienced unit. In that environment, of what relevance can a points adjustment possibly be?

Great work so far. I look forward to seeing more.

Narrative consideration is ALWAYS applicable, because all Competitive players must realize that the rules must also ALWAYS serve the needs of both Competitive and Narrative players, regardless of whether or not that is what is being explicitly discussed. Failure to acknowledge this need leads to the proposing of sweeping rules changes across the board, even if those changes would completely wreck the game for narrative players So, for example, I do not object to @The Neverborn 's suggested that these pages are added to the rules.... Provided those rules also make it clear that it is perfectly acceptable for narrative players to choose to ignore those rules when they don't suit the narrative... Because THAT would meet the needs of BOTH Competitive and Narrative players, as everything GW creates MUST strive to do. This is why I preferred 9th's greater separation between Competitive and Narrative play- in 9th, points updates and most balance updates were clearly labelled as Matched Play only. The relentless pace of balance updates and point changes, for many players come across to many less competitive players as "balance at all costs" - they are disruptive of things that ARE important to us for the sake of something that many of us don't see as a real priority (in the games we ourselves play).

As a Crusader, I have to push back against this when I see it- especially where 8th and 9th are concerned. In 10th, the loadout simplifications and the new detachment system feel somewhat tournament oriented to me; the application of balance updates to all modes of play is another factor as well- so I do see where you're coming from. But if you pay attention to the predetermined terrain layouts beyond what is in the mission maps (which usually DON'T specify terrain layout), that's a YOU thing, and if you're being forced to do it by the people you play with or the store you play in, that's a THEM thing. Neither are a GW thing. To a certain extent, the same is true of table sizes- the factor that muddies the water here is that the way mission maps are made, increasing table size typically doesn't increase the size of no mans land- instead it just makes deployment zones bigger. So if you want to play outside of GW's recommendation, you do have to do a bit of math work to get the maps right. That's assuming you use GW missions at all, which narrative players often don't. We've had 3 Crusade only books released this edition, and I think 2 matched play decks? In 9th, Crusade resources DRAMATICALLY outnumbered matched play resources, and the interminable balance updates applied to Matched play only.

Man, I gotta build my Kroot and get in on this.

I was going to recommend Legends- Yriel, Cloud Dancers and Voidreavers are there. Easy enough to convert. By yeah, if you play pickup games at venues that exclude Legends, or if you really enjoy tournament play that may not be an option. Either way, Corsairs SHOULD be expanded. A Yriel/ generic commander dual build would be nice. And I think you'd want a detachment built for them.