Is Path of Glory only being looped through?

[EMMachine]

Hi,

looking at Path to glory I have quite the feeling that it is basicly "looped through" in the evolution of the game (after it is actually one of the oldest rulepacks).

We know that basicly every newer battletome has the rules for path to glory in it, but it actually looks like GW doesn't put much work into it.

Some of the problems I see.

Allegiance Abilities

Being older than the first generals Handbook with the first incarnation (December 2015), there is no mentioning of Allegiance Abilities if they should be used or not (unlike the last Skirmish Rules from the White Dwarf). Using them can create some stacking combos with the Reward Tables, but not using them punishes factions like Slaanesh, where Abilities from Warscrolls were transfered to the Battletrait of Allegiance Abilities, so the new warscrolls are weaker than the old ones, when not using Battletraits.

Missed out erratas with "Splitting units"

There was an error in the path to glory rules, that was created when 2.0 arrived. In the section "To War" there was the following statement:

Quote

The units you use for a game must be those on your roster. Units can either be field at their full roster strength, or broken down into smaller units, as long as no unit is smaller than the minimum size shown on it's warscroll

This worked with 1.0 Warscrolls after these had the minimumsize printed to it, but 2.0 only said "contain any number of models"

In February 2019 with FEC and Skaven the text was silently changed to:

Quote

The units you use for a game must be those on your roster. Units can either be field at their full roster strength, or broken down into smaller units, as long as no unit is smaller than the minimum size shown on its pitched battle profile

Here it would have been nice if the older publications would have get a change to there rules in the Errata.

Basicly the same was the case with the old summoning with spells, the information about that just vanished in the Maggotkin of Nurgle Battletome.

Point Changes

Even if thinking at first, that PtG doesn't use points, there is actually a pointsystem behind it. Comparing the Tables with the points from that time we get some value spans (but with some strange overlapping areas, but that could also be the case because of the age difference between books).

Follower

• 1 Slot
  • 80/140
• 2 Slots
  • 140/260
• 3 Slots
  • 250/360

 

Champions

• 0 Follower
  • 460/560
• 1 Follower
  • 320/520
• 2 Follower
  • 260/340
• 3 Follower
  • 140/240
• 4 Follower
  • 70/160
• 5 Follower
  • 40/80

The problem is, when points get changed, the PtG Tables won't be changed until the new battletome is released. So we actually have the strange Situation, that the Tzaangor Shaman has 4 followers in Disciples of Tzeentch (because he costed 120 Points back than) and only 3 Followers in Beasts of Chaos, where he costed 180 Points.

One of the biggest ****** ups is Blades of Khorne, where they copy & pasted the old Battletomes table, even if the Tables in Path to Glory were newer, and so Khorne has more followers than all other faction and doesn't have any elite followers (2 slots) even though it has units that would be in the range of 2 Slots.

 

New units outside of Battletomereleases and factions that were only in the "Path to Glory" book

Also not to be underestimated is the topic of new units. So with Looncurse the Arch-Revenant for Sylvaneth was introduced. Since it was not a Battletome release, this model has not been playable in Path to Glory yet, even though the box content worked with it. So it's time to wait until the Battletome appears.

There is also another topic. There are some factions that were only represented in the "Path to Glory" book since their Battletome appeared before the book. From today's point of view, it is almost impossible to get version 2 of the book, because this is only available as an e-book. Due to this situation one unfortunately does not really get used to the battle plans described in the first post, which were intended especially for this control system. Path of Fame makes it possible to select any Battle Plan, but it is a pity that you can hardly get past the original Battleplans because they have a certain flair.

 

Partly I have the feeling, that GW should make a reasonable release with support if points changed or new models arrived or Path to Glory would be better an online release as a PDF, rather than a release in each Battletome, so at least it would be better to deal with rule changes, point changes, and new models.

What do you think?

Edited June 17, 2019 by EMMachine

[Greyshadow]

I really like the concept of Path to Glory and would like to see it stick around. Seems like a fun way to slowly build your force whilst playing games. When I finish my Skirmish campaign I am working on I'd like to give it a try.

[Dead Scribe]

I think that formats like Path to Glory are meant for narrative players who aren't as concerned about points and whom are also open to houseruling the game anyway, and therefore it is acceptable in its current state since they aren't as worried about the point costs behind it and will houserule out or in allegiance abilities to fit the needs of the group they are in.

[Kramer]

What @Dead Scribe said. It’s for people with a  certain mindset who don’t prioritise balance above all. 

I for one still really enjoyed it. But we also needed to change things on the fly. Not only because the limits in our collection. But also some weird options because it isn’t balanced. 

If you are looking for ways to fix it for your local scene I have two (maybe) breakthrough ideas. 😆

1. Miniwargaming are designing a draft system. I don’t think I’ll ever use it as they do but it gives you a different mindset and starting point. Also great balance between choice and randomness being ‘balanced’ by points  

2. The open war army builder looks like it might be a very good tool instead of the table. Add to that the regiments of renown rules/ path to glory unit upgrades and your basically playing path to glory. 

[Oldshrimpeyes]

I consider Path to Glory as half a dozen pages of scrap paper included with every battletome. 

[Kramer]

2 minutes ago, Oldshrimpeyes said:

I consider Path to Glory as half a dozen pages of scrap paper included with every battletome. 

Thanks for the contribution 😂

[Fairbanks]

1 hour ago, EMMachine said:

New units outside of Battletomereleases and factions that were only in the "Path to Glory" book

 

Also not to be underestimated is the topic of new units. So with Looncurse the Arch-Revenant for Sylvaneth was introduced. Since it was not a Battletome release, this model has not been playable in Path to Glory yet, even though the box content worked with it. So it's time to wait until the Battletome appears.

Last I heard, the Sylvaneth Battletome is somewhere in Customs Hell and should have been released already.

I saw a few initial issues with Path to Glory:

1. There’s next to nothing stopping a WAAC player from busting his foot off in the format, and always rolling on the 400 point monster table.

2. Armies and Battletomes themselves don’t support being broken down in tables like this:

a. The army has a handful of different models (Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, FEC), begging to ask why you are rolling on a table in the first place.

b. The army has enough models that it would be broken into several groups of (a), and looks like a weird mismatch if it isn’t.

Honestly, I feel doing an escalation campaign based on point increases is the better way to go.

[EMMachine]

@Dead Scribe @Kramer

The problem is, if you have to houserule it to work than we are basicly in that Thread again, because the the different tables and Followers/Slots are basicly some form of balance for the narrative scene:

 

I don't have a PtG Scene now, but I know from someone else playing a campaign where a Blades of Khorne Army is included. Hopefully I will hear how the first game of this player ended because he has basicly the chance to start with double the points of the other players (having 5 followers and followers costing about 200 Points are single choices where others only get 4 followers and 200 Points cost 2 followers). It's bad when you realize it after your first game because you trusted the rules.

Also from the same campaign I heard that both Sylvaneth players started with the Arch Revenant (that is not even in the table) and both choose 3 followers (even the model would be in the 4 Follower Range).

I mean, the Skirmish Rules of the White Dwarf had a Match Play Section, but its also a narrative System which had restrictions for Allegiance Abilities (only using those of the book), summoning, endless Spells etc.

And the Skirmish Pointsystem was changeable with using the Pitched Battle Profiles instead, but this doesn't work that good because for Path to Glory because of the different tables the game has (not following a defined structure except for the number of Slots the unit needs and that small heros often have another table).

If the gaming type doesn't get any support except that it is printed into the Battletomes, it is sadly like @Oldshrimpeyes said, when the game is basicly leads to beleave it would have some balance but is unbalanced because of pointchanges that weren't taken into account. (and I would say the system has potential if it is supported the right way).

I also would do the update myself (I have written PtG tables for my fanmade Battletomes), but after the official PtG Rules are basicly copyrighted I wouldn't be able to release my changes.

31 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

1. There’s next to nothing stopping a WAAC player from busting his foot off in the format, and always rolling on the 400 point monster table

I think that got better after the PtG Book 2017 because those monsters basicly cost an extra slot (so they have to spend a Glory Point or in case of a 400 point monster most likely 2 Glory Points).

31 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

2. Armies and Battletomes themselves don’t support being broken down in tables like this:

a. The army has a handful of different models (Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, FEC), begging to ask why you are rolling on a table in the first place. 

b. The army has enough models that it would be broken into several groups of (a), and looks like a weird mismatch if it isn’t.

We can also count such cases like Bonesplitters where you basicly can't play Arrowboys because they are not part of the Table, or tables like the order and chaos table where certain units do have new names (the "Death Hag" that is now split into "Hag Queen" and "Slaughter Queen" for example)

Edited June 17, 2019 by EMMachine

[Dead Scribe]

THere is a guy in our meta that branched off to do narrative and he organizes everything for the narrative players.  

I have found over the past couple of years that where I was once rigid on houserules, I can see that a lot of people like them and that the narrative and open formats allow for the people that love houserules to have fun, so I'm ok with that.  

The event organizer in question loves to houserule things, and the narrative stuff they do seems to keep enough people interested that he must be doing something right.

[Kramer]

7 hours ago, EMMachine said:

The problem is, if you have to houserule it to work than we are basicly in that Thread again, because the the different tables and Followers/Slots are basicly some form of balance for the narrative scene:

 

No it's not? I think we're missing each others points or something. I'll try to explain my response in a different way. It's not about good or bad rules writing. It's about a suggested narrative/open playstyle which you can change how you want. It's not a matched play ruling where you have to follow the rules exactly to maintain its balance. 

Things like only suggesting the amount of Glory Points but adding you can change it and giving suggestions. The other thing, but that's my age bias, it originally was only meant as Chaos vs Chaos and the other armies where the supplements/later included. That's kind of how I still view it. They did, and sorely under-invested in, a Path to Glory booklet and the Battletomes are the expansions. 

So in response to the rest of your post: As long as you view it as a balanced system your going to be disappointed. Play same factions against each other it will work though. And again take a look at miniwargamings Draft system. It really fixes a bunch of your concerns.

[FlatTooth]

The Path to glory section of each book literally says to take what they’ve given you and use them as you can.  They are not hard and fast. All narrative gaming requires that the people playing have some kind of dialogue about what they’re doing.

If that isn’t for you, that’s okay. 

If that is for you, awesome!

It’s that simple. 

 

 

 

No, it is actually really that simple!

[EMMachine]

11 hours ago, Kramer said:

The other thing, but that's my age bias, it originally was only meant as Chaos vs Chaos and the other armies where the supplements/later included.

I know that it was chaos vs chaos (back in December 2015). Although I started my interesting when the first generals handbook came out I have the old path to glory rules from back then in my app.

 

11 hours ago, Kramer said:

So in response to the rest of your post: As long as you view it as a balanced system your going to be disappointed. Play same factions against each other it will work though. And again take a look at miniwargamings Draft system. It really fixes a bunch of your concerns.

 

11 hours ago, FlatTooth said:

The Path to glory section of each book literally says to take what they’ve given you and use them as you can.  They are not hard and fast. All narrative gaming requires that the people playing have some kind of dialogue about what they’re doing.

If that isn’t for you, that’s okay. 

If that is for you, awesome!

It’s that simple.  

I wouldn't count myself as a competitive player (looking at my projects that are often more about the optic of the army than on the best matchups) but sadly I often played against (okay, at the moment I doesn't play at all).

So it looks like that I have to houserule it myself if I want to make a campaign hoping that the others will play with the rules, and not adamant that they want to play the tables from the book.

I mean, it's not right that Freeguild pays 2 slots for Greatwords (because they kosted 160 Points back then) but Namati Reavers only cost 1 slot (140 points )

(okay there is much stranger stuff in there (for example why Shootas and Stabbas are in a unit of 15 when 20 could have been an option)

@Kramer can you give me a link to the Draft system?

Edited June 18, 2019 by EMMachine

[Nin Win]

The scenarios in the path to glory book are great fun for small games even if you aren't using the larger path to glory army building system. 

[Kramer]

On 6/18/2019 at 9:52 AM, EMMachine said:

I know that it was chaos vs chaos (back in December 2015). Although I started my interesting when the first generals handbook came out I have the old path to glory rules from back then in my app.

 

 

I wouldn't count myself as a competitive player (looking at my projects that are often more about the optic of the army than on the best matchups) but sadly I often played against (okay, at the moment I doesn't play at all).

So it looks like that I have to houserule it myself if I want to make a campaign hoping that the others will play with the rules, and not adamant that they want to play the tables from the book.

I mean, it's not right that Freeguild pays 2 slots for Greatwords (because they kosted 160 Points back then) but Namati Reavers only cost 1 slot (140 points )

(okay there is much stranger stuff in there (for example why Shootas and Stabbas are in a unit of 15 when 20 could have been an option)

@Kramer can you give me a link to the Draft system?

Yeah absolutly. Released today. Rules dowloadable in the description

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Kramer

[Greyshadow]

I wonder if we will get a White Dwarf update like what we did with Skirmish? They could tidy up a few tables and rules and through in a short battle report or two. That would be nice.