The Maelstrom: Lair of the Tyrant (Second Campaign/Lore Book Set)

[Kyari]

1 hour ago, Nephaston said:

Now these are mind kind of brain worms; making characters that simply don't exist right now; Phobos Techmarines, Terminator Champions, Flayer Lords, Mounted Commanders, Leaders with heavy weapons.

 

Time to raid the bits box.

Honestly this is the most exciting part of this.

 

I also love the approach of "I’ve always wanted another Leader for my T’au Pathfinder squads, as Darkstrider can’t be everywhere at once"

[DemonGSides]

12 minutes ago, Kyari said:

Honestly this is the most exciting part of this.

 

I also love the approach of "I’ve always wanted another Leader for my T’au Pathfinder squads, as Darkstrider can’t be everywhere at once"

 

Yeah it would actually be kind of cool if they keep this.  I want more interesting leaders in non-SM factions and these rules sound like they bridge that gap really well.

[Nephaston]

4 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah it would actually be kind of cool if they keep this.  I want more interesting leaders in non-SM factions and these rules sound like they bridge that gap really well.

I can definitely see it as a selling point for 11th edition codices, adding expanded Crucible sections filling the apparent gaps like cultist leaders for CSM, showing off community made characters and the like.

[phandaal]

8 hours ago, Karhedron said:

In some places that gulf is so wide that anything not in the official codex might as well not exist. Forgeworld used to release such broken OTT rules that everyone in my local gaming group assumes that anyone bringing a Legends unit is a WAAC player, regardless of the fact that has not been true for nearly 2 editions now.

 

In my experience, this is the default experience for 40k. It is one of the things that got me to stop using the latest edition for my own games. The tournament/"official rules only" mindset permeates every level of play, top to bottom.

 

People who are playing other rulesets besides Current Edition are generally OK with a little bit of back and forth on the rules.

[HeadlessCross]

6 hours ago, NorthernUltramarines said:

 

It's easier if you're just meeting people for a game, as you both understand walking into it what the rules/expectations of a list are. Also makes balancing the game easier for tournaments (local or otherwise) as everyone has a standard baseline of what can be taken.

There's also the implication of WHY any certain rule is not legal for matched play to begin with. It could be absolutely broken or it might not even have functioning rules that you have to "houserule" to make sense. 

 

Either make all the rules legal or don't bother making them at all. 

[Evil Eye]

51 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

There's also the implication of WHY any certain rule is not legal for matched play to begin with.

In most cases such stipulations are for rules or units that are flavourful or really fun to use, but can cause issues in a tournament setting where precise balance is more important compared to a casual FLGS or garagehammer setting where everyone is just wanting a bit of fun and the lower stakes mean "why not crack out the fun stuff" is easy to justify.

 

Case in point, the Chapter Approved vehicle design rules from the tail end of 3rd edition. Not advisable for tournament play because by the very nature of a system that lets you make any vehicle, from a light artillery tractor to a towering landship, it is impossible to balance the game around every single possible creation you could make (even if the average VDR creation usually ends up costing more than a Codex counterpart). However it is very, very cool, and the average gamer (especially at the time) wasn't especially concerned with what the tourney crowd were doing.

 

Basically, horses for courses. Tournament style competitive play is not the be-all and end-all of wargaming by any stretch, so just because a particular feature doesn't work for it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

[Lord Marshal]

2 hours ago, Nephaston said:

I can definitely see it as a selling point for 11th edition codices, adding expanded Crucible sections filling the apparent gaps like cultist leaders for CSM, showing off community made characters and the like.

 

Not dissimilar to how AoS does it currently. You get all the 'custom character' stuff in the battletomes, rather than outside of it. The upside is you're only hunting down generic stuff outside of the battletome, but the downside is some armies wait the whole edition before getting their Build-a-Bear.

 

Be interesting to see which route 40k goes come 11th, since iirc AoS started with it all being an external thing in a General's Handbook?

 

Edited February 10 by Lord Marshal

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

In most cases such stipulations are for rules or units that are flavourful or really fun to use, but can cause issues in a tournament setting where precise balance is more important compared to a casual FLGS or garagehammer setting where everyone is just wanting a bit of fun and the lower stakes mean "why not crack out the fun stuff" is easy to justify.

 

Case in point, the Chapter Approved vehicle design rules from the tail end of 3rd edition. Not advisable for tournament play because by the very nature of a system that lets you make any vehicle, from a light artillery tractor to a towering landship, it is impossible to balance the game around every single possible creation you could make (even if the average VDR creation usually ends up costing more than a Codex counterpart). However it is very, very cool, and the average gamer (especially at the time) wasn't especially concerned with what the tourney crowd were doing.

 

Basically, horses for courses. Tournament style competitive play is not the be-all and end-all of wargaming by any stretch, so just because a particular feature doesn't work for it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

Should a system that can easily be broken be released to begin with?

[The Lost Son]

Are the crucible rules going to be in the downloads or is it only in the book? Just wondering incase it sells out before I can order like Titus seemed to

[Vassakov]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Should a system that can easily be broken be released to begin with?

 

Depends on whether you view 40k as a (theoretically) balanced strategy wargame, or as a wargame with RPG elements.

 

Neither are "correct " but there is certainly a tension between the two. Most RPGs are very easy to break if you really want to, which is why no-one is running D&D tournaments. On the other hand, no-one is trying to make chess narratively compelling.

 

At its best 40k sits uncomfortably in the middle of these.

Edited February 10 by Vassakov

[kabaakaba]

Well, technically they can balanced abilities you can add to your dude character. Infantry 30 pts, 5++ 10pts, +1 to hit 25pts, vortex giga blaster? 50 pts, can lead battleline 10pts/elite 20pts. 

This way they can make it even tournament compatible 

[ThaneOfTas]

13 hours ago, ChapterMasterGodfrey said:

What even is Narrative Play? Matched is Matched and all strict, Open is put down random and roll dice. I don't see where "Narrative" comes into it? I was under the assumption Crusade was still Matched.

I am not sure if its still in the 10th ed rulebook, however in 8th and 9th there was clear reference to Matched, Narrative and Open being three different modes of play. With Matched being focused on balanced missions and tournament play, Narrative being focused on creating stories and coming up with your own missions or using supplied narrative ones, often with some form or asymmetry.  Once 9th came along Crusade expanded on Narrative, and all of the campaign books have been at least partially narrative play. Then Open is as you say, anything goes.

 

3 hours ago, The Lost Son said:

Are the crucible rules going to be in the downloads or is it only in the book? Just wondering incase it sells out before I can order like Titus seemed to

We don't know yet, I think that they'll show back up in 11th, but I'm only guessing. As far as we know for sure, the only place will be in this book.

[kabaakaba]

Rulebook mentioned only matched and narrative game. Open don't mentioned anymore as I can see.

I think books reapered on ebay once they delivered 

Edited February 11 by kabaakaba

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Vassakov said:

 

Depends on whether you view 40k as a (theoretically) balanced strategy wargame, or as a wargame with RPG elements.

 

Neither are "correct " but there is certainly a tension between the two. Most RPGs are very easy to break if you really want to, which is why no-one is running D&D tournaments. On the other hand, no-one is trying to make chess narratively compelling.

 

At its best 40k sits uncomfortably in the middle of these.

D&D is an actual RPG though. 40k is not. 

[ThaneOfTas]

38 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

D&D is an actual RPG though. 40k is not. 

What is an RPG other than a game where you play a role? The role that you play in 40k is the commander of an army that you create. It may not be a traditional RPG, and it may not be how you prefer to play, but there is a lot of shared dna between the two genres and ignoreing that is ignoring a significant part of what makes 40k popular.

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

What is an RPG other than a game where you play a role? The role that you play in 40k is the commander of an army that you create. It may not be a traditional RPG, and it may not be how you prefer to play, but there is a lot of shared dna between the two genres and ignoreing that is ignoring a significant part of what makes 40k popular.

By that logic Chess and Starcraft are RPGs. 

[01RTB01]

5 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

By that logic Chess and Starcraft are RPGs. 

My wife says that chess in our house is. You should see it when she moves the knights and 'neighs' accordingly.

[ThaneOfTas]

13 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

By that logic Chess and Starcraft are RPGs.

 

8 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

My wife says that chess in our house is. You should see it when she moves the knights and 'neighs' accordingly.

Thats kinda my point, any game where you can make choices to tell a story can be an RPG if you role play hard enough. However my larger and more important point is that Warhammer has always been RPG adjacent, it got its start as a particularly combat focused one in the same way that DND arguably got its start from early wargaming. Trying to draw hard lines between the genres not only ignores all of that, but risks alienating the sections of the player base who prefer a different aspect of the spectrum to you.

 

If you don't want to play with these rules you don't have to, if you don't like that they're not highly tuned for balance that's fine, you're not going to be forced to use them. considering that you dont seem to want role play elements in your wargame I'm really not sure why you'd care at all about these rules as you're not the target audience?

[sitnam]

28 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

By that logic Chess and Starcraft are RPGs. 

 

Warcraft III certainly is a strategy game with RPG elements, and I think you can draw some parallels to 40k.

 

Editions  previous to 10th gave players a host of options to build their characters/armies, and the decision to streamline the game and remove many of those options is a key criticism I've seen from more narrative focused gamers.

 

This create a character system doesn't seem like a bad deal, keeps the tourney game streamlines whilst letting casual/narrative/crusader players story telling options

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

My wife says that chess in our house is. You should see it when she moves the knights and 'neighs' accordingly.

Relevant 

 

Edited February 11 by HeadlessCross

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

By that logic Chess and Starcraft are RPGs. 

Rogue trader leaned heavily into the RPG aspect.

RPGs are part of the game’s DNA.

[Lord Marshal]

Most of the Detachments and Datasheets are now in the updated Faction Packs, though not all of them (Votann and Orks). Judging by the WarCom article they'll appear after release, but the influencers are freely talking about them now anyway (Goonhammer and Art of War).

 

Also the WarCom article for prosperity.

 

 

Edited February 11 by Lord Marshal

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

I think GW saw that table that is Marine Characters by armour mark, jump pack and bike and thought "We're not filling that anytime soon... make your own!"

[phandaal]

17 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Should a system that can easily be broken be released to begin with?

 

Depends on the goal for the system. If the system is made for people who will not limit themselves and need to have guardrails to prevent them from bringing something broken to the table, then yes that system should be made with that goal in mind.

 

If the system is made for people who will not bring those broken rules to the table (or will not play games with people who do), then it would not be as important to police what people can do.

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

Depends on the goal for the system. If the system is made for people who will not limit themselves and need to have guardrails to prevent them from bringing something broken to the table, then yes that system should be made with that goal in mind.

 

If the system is made for people who will not bring those broken rules to the table (or will not play games with people who do), then it would not be as important to police what people can do.

Exceptionally well put, it's the big downside of the tournament mindset.