Noctus Cornix Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I know I'm an outsider to all this but you two are seriously funny (and not at all like a married couple *runs for the warp!*) :-p Don't look now, Noct, but I think we've been shipped! http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z142/Malisteen/spafeNowKiss.jpg I-I.... I don't know what to say.... This is all happening so fast... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biaz Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Is it possible if you had say 5 players, to have a big "Every faction for himself" battle royale style campaign or does it really not work with the mechanics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I wouldn't know to be honest. My first reaction is to say yes. The "base" campaign they show was for four factions(CoF, SoR, PoW and the GM traps) although only two of those factions benefited from the Grand Warmaster Traits. So my initial instinct is to say, as long as you can manage it the answer is yes. As to Grand Warmaster Traits, you could make up more for the other factions, play as is or just ignore them altogether. I really do wish I could give you a clear answer but this is the one place my lack of experience won't let me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colossus Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Okay, for someone who has no experience of any campaigns... *snip* That's really insightful, thanks for the review! Also, Mali and Noctis, congrats- should we be expecting some Spawn soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Ambroz Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 So would this be worth getting for 2 players that play one another often? Or would it be more worthwile for a larger group. Mali and Noctus.....I knew there was something going on between you two.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes. It's more or less a "Campaign-making for dummies" from what I can tell and it should work for both. The book suggests trying to have as few factions as possible but that's only for ease of keeping track of the campaign. So if only two people are playing, yes. More than that, yes as long as you can keep track. EDIT: Also, if you are even thinking of getting this, beware that it is time-sensitive because last I saw, the website was already sold out and the LGSes seem to be selling out like crazy. I know I got my company on a day when some new copies came in and there was only one copy left after I got mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I have a question about rewards in the campaign. In the BitB campaign, controlling fewer territories let you move your forces on the map first, but controlling particular kinds of territories gave you extra benetifs in game, the most common of which was more points (whether in the form of free items or just-more-points for your army). I found this to be particularly irksome, in that it was difficult to balance for smaller games, but pushed larger games into the 'too big to play on a regular basis' range. Are they still using bonus points as a default reward for controlling territories in this campaign, or have they moved onto something else? ----------------------------- Also, Mali and Noctis, congrats- should we be expecting some Spawn soon? Mali and Noctus.....I knew there was something going on between you two.... It doesn't stop from happening! http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z142/Malisteen/moreshipping.gif http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z142/Malisteen/yetmoreshipping.gif It's... It's possible I may have been spending too much time on tumblr lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azekai Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I am so happy for you two. May the Dark Gods smile upon ya both, 'till death or daemonhood parts you. Ahem, but yeah, Crusade of Fire does not pique my interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperors Immortals Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Well, ildefinatly purchase a copy so i can run some non-standard games probably over VASSAL for thefuture. Also, congrats Mali and Nox. All I can say is "because Slaanesh..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz431 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Definitely campaigns for dummies but you do get a great concept on how to build your own. Overall, in the book the chaos players screwed the imperial pooch. They made bad decisions that led to poor dice rolls. Though the wolf lord did get captured for the commoragh slave arena. Hilarious. Stupid dog. And they devised a hilarious twist after a battle Orbital Bombardment of an entire planet. LOL. So if you get a chance to flip the pages if you can find one or if someone posts it online soon. Fun! Edit: it has gotten my brain to reconsider running my deathwatch game but with stakes. Or help friends get into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kythnos Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I have a question about rewards in the campaign. In the BitB campaign, controlling fewer territories let you move your forces on the map first, but controlling particular kinds of territories gave you extra benetifs in game, the most common of which was more points (whether in the form of free items or just-more-points for your army). I found this to be particularly irksome, in that it was difficult to balance for smaller games, but pushed larger games into the 'too big to play on a regular basis' range. Are they still using bonus points as a default reward for controlling territories in this campaign, or have they moved onto something else? As Crusade of Fire uses the same basic mechanics from Galactic Empires where it doesn't say otherwise, you'll have more points to use if you have less territories (50 points per territory) than your opponent. So for example if you (4 territories) play against someone stronger (6 territories), you can use 100 points more than him, if you play against that player. This is not dependant on the size of the actual game played, no matter if you decide on a 500 points game or a 2000 points one. CoF does replace the building for bonus points with a different effect, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I have a question about rewards in the campaign. In the BitB campaign, controlling fewer territories let you move your forces on the map first, but controlling particular kinds of territories gave you extra benetifs in game, the most common of which was more points (whether in the form of free items or just-more-points for your army). I found this to be particularly irksome, in that it was difficult to balance for smaller games, but pushed larger games into the 'too big to play on a regular basis' range. Are they still using bonus points as a default reward for controlling territories in this campaign, or have they moved onto something else? The points are not used to give bonuses in terms of list points. Controlling certain territories will give you bonuses similar to the campaign mode in the later DoW games. Example, one territory might have a Manufactorium in it. Once you control that territory, any time you fight on that planet you have access to an extra Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support slot, provided you can fit it into your games. And then control of certain planets(or a space station) allows you to have bonuses regardless of which planet you fight on. For example, controlling Voidspan Point Station allows you to have Orbital Bombardment, another gives you access to Vortex Grenades, Supreme Headquarters, Careful Planning, Minefield and so on. All the points are for are to keep track of which side is winning by controlling the most territories and which player in that faction has the most points. Again, the Planetary Empires are not necessary as long as you have a way to keep track of everything, whether it be paper, computer program or a dog who speaks English and has perfect memory. Or a pickle with a horse's skull in Mali's case. :) So no, the points themselves don't really give the bonuses since some planets only have two or three territories which means you can be a player with the least amount of territories and control two planets(two or three territories each) and a space station and still have the bonuses inherent to all three while two or three other players could still be fighting over the largest planet and each have twelve territories and none of them have any bonuses except the ones they get while fighting on that particular planet. Also, the point sizes of the armies are decided between players on the turn they fight in the campaign GW did in the book. It doesn't have to be. Even they said that. Again, I strongly believe this is a "How to" book with extra scenarios to help with creating a campaign or some other form of a narrative battle. If you want to play the actual campaign GW did, then that's okay. It might be easier if you do it their way, but you still don't have to and can still have room to make it "your own." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Riorik Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I've ordered it for turdlettes and gigglets to flip through and be inspired. Mainly interested in seeing if this character on character thing they have in it is just the standard game or if there is actually something in it to make it a bit more interesting. Hoping for the latter expecting the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctus Cornix Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Mal... I believe you have a bit too much free time on your hands buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Mal... I believe you have a bit too much free time on your hands buddy. Must... make... more... lousy... gifs... http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z142/Malisteen/necropony.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperors Immortals Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Umm, thats actually quite cool!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinners Red Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 My minor threadnomancy has brought back memories of 4chan... Anyways. I liked the book. I enjoy the special rules it brought to the game. I pretty much ignored any battle reports. Cause apparently NO ONE on this forum likes the guy that played dark eldar. And most of those lists are too fluff based to produce any kind of valuable battle report. Ill stick to getting my battle reports from Citadel Army Guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I used to like that guy. I used to love that guy with the fiery passion of an obsessed internet stalker. He was a shining beacon from which shone the light of several of my favorite Games Workshop faction books. Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Vampire counts. But somewhere along the line that love was lost, and the light sputtered and dimmed. The magic was gone, and the care and consideration he had lavished on his other children turned to icy distance and dispassionate neglect when it came to Codex: CSMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctus Cornix Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Opinions about Phil aside (I still support you Phil!) along with opinions about the new codex in general, I will simply voice my opinion yet again about how much I like this book. I'm aware that some people have been questioning why this has been its own book and wasn't just a supplement in a White Dwarf. To those of you who believe that I would simply have to ask if you think cities of death and planet strike should also have been in White Dwarf. Don't respond because I know I probably won't like the answer. :( Either way, Crusade of Fire is a 'How to Make Campaigns' book with a fairly clean and easy to read guidelines along with a bunch of cool little ideas and mechanics that fit snuggly with the 6th edition rules. It is well worth its price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Not terrible familiar with Planetstrike - it was released at the nadir of my interest in 40k - but the Cities of Death rules were much more involved and interesting than the rules on display in Crusade. Not that I think Crusade is a terrible product, but it's really no Cities of Death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Planet strike was a way to simulate the exact moment when someone invades a planet. There's the attacker and defender. The Defender has the opportunity to become well-entrenched right then and there. The Attacker has almost nothing and basically has to set up a beach head. Cities of Death is basically an urban warfare scenario. Crusade of Fire is for multi-planet(perhaps even multi-system) campaigns. And the exact example they showed used Planetstrike, Cities of Death and even Apocalypse as well as the scenarios they provided. Essentially, it is something that uses what they already have while providing rules for specific scenarios you are likely to encounter during a campaign of that size in 40k. Space stations, daemon worlds, even the arenas of Commoragh. They didn't need to put in-depth details because everything they could put in is already somewhere else. And they are a business after all so they are not going to reprint PlanetStrike, CoD and Apoc for ease of convenience when they could get someone to buy the books by saying "We reference this scenario book for these rules." I mean, other than global scenarios(most of which are in the rulebook anyways) there really isn't much they can add to the game without making it so convoluted it would cause everyone to revert to the intelligence capacity of a rock. So I mean, it sort of brings up the question "What did you expect?" I mean that in the sincerest, most polite way imaginable because it's not a scenario book, but it seems that's what everyone was expecting. It's almost like the general reaction is "Shame on you GW for trying to make the hobby fun between friends!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I don't think that's the case. This book is pretty much what everyone expected it to be - 40k Blood in the Badlands. It's just that BitB wasn't the beefiest of books. It's kind of haphazzard, can't really be run 'out of the book' without a good deal of improvisation and maybe even non-player GMS, has some neat ideas, but nothing much fleshed out, and an interesting campaign report, but nothing you'll really learn much from. It's not a terrible product, but it doesn't bring much to the game, and while it might provide the inspiration to get a decent local 40k campaign underway, it doesn't really add much to what that campaign would have looked like using existing expansions and the campaign rules in the map tiles box, and in the end it feels like the kind of thing some of us would have rather seen as a series of white dwarf articles following a studio campaign month to month, perhaps coinciding with a map tiles release or something of that nature. It's not really a criticism (although reported copy editing problems and snubbing of sisters do qualify as criticisms, and Kelly rocking his dark eldar in the campaign write up while the chaos players struggle is certainly salt in the wound), and it's not even something other than what was expected. It's just... not really particularly exciting or engaging to many of us. It's more a book for its own sake, rather than a product I could really use for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colossus Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 To be fair, it would have spiced up WD. Made it more of an interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ammonius Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 It's not a terrible product, but it doesn't bring much to the game, and while it might provide the inspiration to get a decent local 40k campaign underway, it doesn't really add much to what that campaign would have looked like using existing expansions and the campaign rules in the map tiles box, and in the end it feels like the kind of thing some of us would have rather seen as a series of white dwarf articles following a studio campaign month to month, perhaps coinciding with a map tiles release or something of that nature. I agree, the book isn't as "plug and play" as some may want, but (at least for my local group) it should be enough inspiration to get a sector campaign going. The gladiator rules are also causing a stir around here, with the idea of the FLGS starting a gladiator league to run in parallel with other activities. It's not really a criticism (although reported copy editing problems and snubbing of sisters do qualify as criticisms, and Kelly rocking his dark eldar in the campaign write up while the chaos players struggle is certainly salt in the wound), and it's not even something other than what was expected. It's just... not really particularly exciting or engaging to many of us. It's more a book for its own sake, rather than a product I could really use for anything. Man oh man. Seeing PK not running an army out of his latest work, and the fact that ALL of the chaos players are "not known for winning" in their local group really sets my teeth on edge. Phil is even making a trollface in the picture of him with his (admittedly very nice looking) Dark Eldar army. If I had been the project manager (acknowledging that I do not know any of the internal realities of the project), I would have really pushed for Crusade of Fire to be the book that shows how the new Chaos Codex is intended to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 If I had been the project manager (acknowledging that I do not know any of the internal realities of the project), I would have really pushed for Crusade of Fire to be the book that shows how the new Chaos Codex is intended to be used. but it shows very well how it ends up being used , so what is the problem ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.