ThePenitentOne

That's fair. But Torchbearer Fleet Crusade campaigns using the WD rules in 9th ed are pretty much peak 40k. I'm not a huge non-Chamber marine fan, nor am I fan of Custodes beyond the SoS, but those Torchbearer rules actually made me want to play both. Unfortunately my collection didn't lend itself to Torchbearer fleet- like I said, Greyknights and Deathwatch are the only marines that really interest me, and neither of those could be reinforced by Primaris Greyshields, which was what the Torchbearer rules were designed to reflect.

Which, as a Crusader, sucks. "You MUST use this unit if you want that detachment, despite the fact that this unit can't grow over time, which is the ENTIRE POINT of the version of the game you are playing. (Assuming, of course, that GW don't just kill Crusade in 11th)

I also quite like Reivers, and was planning on getting some to form a Specturs Kill Team for Deathwatch. Question: Do standard Tacticus/ Fortis DW shoulder pads work on Reivers, or do you need special "Phobos" shoulderpads that are only available in limited quantities with the new 5 man Primaris DW KT?

You can make a Krootox mounted hero using the Crucible rules which can lead Rampagers or Riders.

IF it's true that there are "alien mercs" on the Dias with Vect, that could be good or bad. I've done a lot of speculation about the fate of "Court of the Archon" in a world where "Hand of the Archon" exists as a unit. I was fearful Court models may not be remade in plastic as their role has been usurped by the Hand. But if GW's solution was to make the Court Vect only... Well, that means we HAVE a Court... But it also kinda means we don't. And look, I WANT Vect, right? Like, I'm hungry for it... The money is literally already spent, it just hasn't left the account yet. But once again, I'm a Crusader, and named characters are problematic in Crusade because they can't grow. So if the Court is attached to a named character in 11th, they become less fun for me... And that's assuming Crusade even survives. ALSO: If this means we're getting the Drukhari dex EARLY in the cycle, then that means anything I like about the current dex has the potential to be changed, invalidated or just disappear altogether. ALSO: IF we get Vect and the Dias, does that mean we don't get a a big wave? Because as much as I'm down for Vect, getting Beasts, Grotesques and (hopefully) the Court are more important than getting a named character. ALSO: My biggest hope for Vect was that the new Dias was a plastic Tantalus... Which would mean the kit could also be used as just a plastic Tantalus.

I love that Intranzia has the Penitent Keyword by default. I also love the fact that the Crucible of War rules also give me a way to feild a generic version of her (or Morvenn) as well as a generic version of Karamazov... Because unliked named characters, generic equivalents actually make sense in Crusade.

So this is almost like Necroposting, but the Maelstrom hero creation rules allow for some new mounted units. I'm definitely interested in trying this with Drukhari now that I can take a Leader for Reavers. I think there are other mounted options for characters in other factions too. Edit- Yep- just checked the book, and you can make a Kroot Hero on a Krootox. The Lonespear is a generic character anyway, which makes the Krootox Riding character less important... But Admech Magi or Cohort Commanders can ride those cool cybermounts.

Sorry it took so long to see the message- the issue was 517, Here's a thread about it:

I've found the regualr monthly "Bunker" Missions to be hit or miss... And not really much different than standard mission fare. However, there have been some that were not regular monthly bunker missions that I liked- there was a monster hunt mission in the issue that had extra Crusade content for Kroot- that was cool. The cavalry minigame and its associated missions were cool.

Disappointed that there's no detachment for Sisters- we are getting a model with this set, and Armageddon was a really big Lore moment for the OoOML- it was a massacre of the Sororitas forces at Armageddon that convinced the order to add the colour red to its livery. Kinda feels like a slight for us to be overlooked here. But the "Many small books in a slipcase" format seems to place an arbitrary limit on what % of the total package can focus on datacards and detachments.

I hope they say something about the fate of Crusade soon- It's a pretty big deal for me. I know that with dexes carrying over, I should theoretically be able to houserule Crusade back in if they decide to cut it. What I worry about is that they simplify it to the point where it's not deep enough to be fun, but the existance of whatever they come up with to replace it makes Houseruling the old system back in less viable.

Problem is, like Drukhari Kabalites and Wyches, redoing them would invite scale creep, jigsaw assembly, and increase costs. Which is why it's always better to release models that the game absolutely, certifiably NEEDS vs. let's redo this kit.... For the FIFTH TIME! Yes, you can redo the Carnifex... Once Sisters have an Aircraft, Drukhari get plastic Court, Beasts etc. (really everything they've lost), Tau get another alien Auxiliary race, they finish EC and World Eaters... Because ALL of those things are more important than redoing ANYTHING that already exists in plastic, and since none of those things currently exist in plastic, there's no way making them can make the game WORSE which is ABSOLUTELY what will happen if the new Carnifex model you think you want sucks. (Sorry for the rant, but this or something like it will be posted EVERY TIME someone suggests reinventing the wheel instead of doing things that are ACTUALLY neccessary)

Yeah, this is what I meant when I said that it's worse now: the recommended board layouts are now actually in the BRB, three recommended layouts per mission. I think the fact that they're in the book, and they are connected to individual missions means you're MORE likely to have people use them than when it was just an extra PDF. And sure, they're footprints, so I can make the sides of the board LOOK different by putting rocks on one footprint and trees on another, but the point remains that I can't make the terrain BE different even if it LOOKS different. And now it's a part of your mission, not just an obscure PDF that most garage-hammer players didn't even bother to download. If that obscure PDF screwed up game nights at your store by making all boards similar and soulless, writing similar rules directly into the mission, even if they're slightly more flexible in a cosmetic sense, isn't likely to improve the situation as much as promised. We shall see.

In 10th, there were a lot of complaints about the "L-shaped terrain" problem... And I always responded the same way: those aren't actual rules from the actual rulebook; they are mere recomendations for tournament play provided in a separate, take-it-or-leave-it PDF document. This seems different- both better and worse. Better because it's more flexible than the L-shaped stuff, but worse because it is now actually a part of the rules and the rulebook. I will say that I found the article had enough gaps that I still need the actual rules in order to determine net positive vs net negative- so other than the observations above, I kind of have to hold my opinions close to the chest until I see more information. But I gotta tell you, I'm running out of patience as I wait for confirmation about whether or not Crusade has a future.

The problem with Stranger Things wasn't so much that there were five seasons... It's that they took 11 years to make five seasons. Law and Order, One Chicago, the Power Franchise... No problem: New Season every year. Heck, they even managed short seasons through a writer's strike and Covid. My perfect model is Handmaid's Tale. The series went WAY farther than the book... WITH Margaret Atwood's participation and support. It's success inspired her to write the sequel we've wanted for 34 years... And now they're serializing it (again, with her support and participation), and I expect the series will expand the world of the book considerably. Serializing in general follows a patern: the idea is to draw something to a satisfactory closure... But leave the potential to tell another story later... As opposed to the unresolved cliff hanger option. Some classic trilogies do both. Look at the classic Star Wars. A New hope came to a conclusion. If they had walked away and never done another, no one would say the movie was incomplete. But then Empire happens... And it's a huge cliff hanger that doesn't resolve without Jedi. The same approach was taken with the Matrix: Part One stands alone quite well, but two doesn't resolve without three. Bringing it back to 40k is hard for me, because I generally ignore Black Library and I think it does as much harm to the game as it does help. They do, as I understand it, have planned series, where they decide in advance how many volumes it'll take to tell a story. They do have stand alones. They do have characters who perticipate in multiple single-event, non-serialized, discrete stories. Then they have the "Stretching Series" - the thing that might have been planned as a trilogy, but was then expanded when they discovered it was a cash cow. But again, that's a limited understanding from a guy who has read all of 8 BL Books in total (Day of Ascension, Cult of the War Mason, Faith and Fire, Requiem Infernal, The Triumph of Saint Katherine and the Eisenhorn Trilogy). I don't consider a single one to be "Lore" - to me, Black Library books are like movies based on true stories- most aren't as true as you think they are, even when they're good... And as often as not, they aren't actually all that good either. To me, "Lore" comes from game books. This might be why I don't feel like the Sandbox is dead. If that's true, the good news is you can get your sandbox back by either not reading BL, or just understanding that it ISN'T 40k... It's stories based on/ set within the 40k Galaxy.