Jump to content

Crusade of Fire


Bat33.1

Recommended Posts

The fact that we get to see hobbyists and their armies playing the campaign is a plus for me, it's not just Eavy Metal models, although I rather suspect most of the armies will be studio ones painted for White Dwarf etc. It's definitely a nice idea, hopefully it will bring more fluff back into the game.

Looks to be a 40k equivalent to "Blood in the Badlands", which was... ok. Didn't really see anything in the way of new model releases, and I'm not expecting any here (they likely would have been announced alongside the new book). Likewise, didn't see any rules for new units, let alone new units that could be used in the main game independent of the campaign, so this isn't going to shore up any problems anyone might have with the book.

 

The BitB campaign was a bit sloppy - there were a lot of places that called on, shall we say, "improvisation". Games also tended to be rather large, with rules that leaned towards 2k+ starting sizes, with campaign rules typically adding 500 points or more to each side. The result was a campaign where individual games took basically all day, and trying to keep a group properly organized and playing such time consuming games on a weekly basis was very difficult. I don't regret getting the book, but I also haven't seen a campaign all the way to completion despite trying twice, and after trying twice I'm having a hard time finding people willing to give it a go again. I'll probably pick this book up, but... maybe not. I certainly won't pre-order it.

;): YOU ALREADY HAVE MY MONEY GW!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

 

 

Ill have to get this now, Im very excited by the idea of a sanctioned campaign pack for GW that different gaming groups can enjoy - as I am currently a mercenary gamer taking on battle wherever I can find it....

 

It seems like Astartes/Imperial crusade, CSM and traitor elements and Dark ELdar, with im sure plenty of other factions to flesh out allied detachments.

Looks to be a 40k equivalent to "Blood in the Badlands", which was... ok. Didn't really see anything in the way of new model releases, and I'm not expecting any here (they likely would have been announced alongside the new book). Likewise, didn't see any rules for new units, let alone new units that could be used in the main game independent of the campaign, so this isn't going to shore up any problems anyone might have with the book.

 

The BitB campaign was a bit sloppy - there were a lot of places that called on, shall we say, "improvisation". Games also tended to be rather large, with rules that leaned towards 2k+ starting sizes, with campaign rules typically adding 500 points or more to each side. The result was a campaign where individual games took basically all day, and trying to keep a group properly organized and playing such time consuming games on a weekly basis was very difficult. I don't regret getting the book, but I also haven't seen a campaign all the way to completion despite trying twice, and after trying twice I'm having a hard time finding people willing to give it a go again. I'll probably pick this book up, but... maybe not. I certainly won't pre-order it.

 

I had more or less the same experience. The scenarios were meant to be played at about 2000 points and the armies could get bigger. A lot bigger.

I think I'm going to wait and "borrow this from a friend" later on.

One thing just hit me, this looks to be a hard cover book that is equal in size to the new C:CSM. But the Campaign book is only US$41.00 while the Codex is US$50.00. What the flip GW?

 

It's not an essential product for the game, whereas a codex is. Thus they up the price on a codex because most people will buy it anyway, whilst a campaign book is less desirable and needed less. Thus they make the price lower to encourage more people to buy it. It's also not a huge price difference either, so people will think, ah GW has seen the light and it's cheaper. The books probably only worth about 15 quid in the uk, I bet most of it would be stuff they'd show in WD anyway.

I had more or less the same experience. The scenarios were meant to be played at about 2000 points and the armies could get bigger. A lot bigger.

I think I'm going to wait and "borrow this from a friend" later on.

 

It would have been far better if they had come up with bonuses that didn't just boil down to "have more points". If you try and aim for smaller games, the points added by the campaign rules are way too unbalanced (as are the storm of magic games the campaign regularly calls for), and if you play larger games then they result in 3+ plus point games (or even 4k+ point games, if you're playing storm of magic) that just take too long for regular weekly gaming.

 

You can use the BitB campaign as inspiration for your own, home brewing things where necessary, but then did you really need a $40 book to tell you how?

 

Like I said, I don't regret getting it, but I wouldn't exactly recommend it, either.

 

 

Anyway, hopefully the crusade of fire campaign doesn't push larger games so hard, and doesn't rely so heavily on 'bonus points' as a regular campaign gimmick.

I had more or less the same experience. The scenarios were meant to be played at about 2000 points and the armies could get bigger. A lot bigger.

I think I'm going to wait and "borrow this from a friend" later on.

 

It would have been far better if they had come up with bonuses that didn't just boil down to "have more points". If you try and aim for smaller games, the points added by the campaign rules are way too unbalanced (as are the storm of magic games the campaign regularly calls for), and if you play larger games than they result in 3+ plus point games (or even 4k+ point games, if you're playing storm of magic) that just take too long for regular weekly gaming.

 

Yeah the bonus magic iteams also resulted in ridiciolous situations.

In the campaign we are currently "playing" (we actually decided to take a break from the campaign because it got too exhausting. I don't think we will get back to it) I had a super (+3A 2+ armour 2+ ward) equiped hero for roughly 130 points. :)

For my gaming group, a campaign needs to default to smaller games (1k to 1500ish), with larger games only every 4 to 6 weeks, or yeah, players get exhausted.

 

If I do blood in the badlands again, I'll be aiming for smaller usual games, halving or even quartering bonus points, and making storm of magic a particular event, rather than something that can happen whenever based on a castle floating around. But, again, that's a lot of improvising for a campaign I was hoping to run out of the book.

 

If Crusade of Fire can manage to scale to different game sizes without having to be re-worked so much, I'll be much happier.

GW just released another blog post about Crusade of Fire (find ithere).

Pretty much the post just says wait and spend more money on the next issue of White Dwarf for more information.

I, for one, am interested in the low gravity rules. I think it would be kinda cool, especially if you could figure out away for a section the battlefield be the hull of a ship and another be the interior.

Also the Arena of Death (which I suppose would be Commorragh) seems interesting.

 

Never done a campaign before. I look forward to this.

The edge paints are unimpressive ( it's not as if brighter colours of a good quality aren't widely available ) and good brushes can be bought from somewhere else.

9 colours ( although i have to admit that i consider citadel colours to be somewhat overpricedand ) and a single brush aren't worth 46 Euros.

What i can see of the tutorial book is somewhat underwhelming as well ( edge highlights have their place but the approach shown here is quite heavy handed).

9 colours ( although i have to admit that i consider citadel colours to be somewhat overpricedand ) and a single brush aren't worth 46 Euros.

 

Agreed, hence my curiosity regarding the possibility of future individual packaging. As for the new GW paints in general - probably not worth their price, but I don't paint in sufficient volume to notice any significant savings by switching brands. And while there are brands I like better or worse, it tends to vary color by color (I use GW and P3 mostly, but also use some Vallejo and other stuff, all on a color by color basis). I had been moving away from GW before their foundation and wash lines, which I found to be particularly nice. With the new paint line, I find I'm moving away again (bases > foundations; shades > washes), but some of the new pinks and purples are nice, and I like the glazes.

 

Anyway, I'm pretty happy with Slaaneshi grey as a top highlight for the black hard armor and muted purple soft armor on my Black Legion models, but that pale purple peeking up past the pink might yet find a place in my paint scheme, provided I can purchase pots of just that paint in particular.

 

Alliteration.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.