Jump to content

Path to Glory 3


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Nasrod said:

Played The Trap against Kharadaron Overlords today.

They deployed in the corner and popped Spell in a Bottle Soulsnare Shackles. 

I'm Soulblight Gravelords.

Our Path to Glory campaign officially starts in August and I think I went from being fantastically excited to dropping out of it before it even starts. 

The idea of PtG is awesome but tying win conditions to killing things exclusively amd eschewing the objective based gameplay is such a bad idea...

You can play any type of mission you like for Path to Glory though, so it’s a pretty easy fix to stick with the Matched Play mission, or objective based Narrative one’s, and avoid the kill point missions if you don’t find them fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Subscriber

With a bit more time behind us, what do you guys think of the system? I'm hoping to start a PTG campaign soon and I'm wondering if there's anything we should look out for, or any important homebrew rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Enoby said:

With a bit more time behind us, what do you guys think of the system? I'm hoping to start a PTG campaign soon and I'm wondering if there's anything we should look out for, or any important homebrew rules?

I have a hard time explaining it, but my personal tests with the system was not enough time to understand how to make improvements myself, but its just okay I feel. I just think they needed more time making this feel like a campaign than a fairly barren system with too many words and little impact. I feel if you are someone who wants to build off this system, this is exactly what I'm doing, so far its hard but I'm getting somewhere. But if you use this exactly as intended, it leaves a lot to be desired for narrative fun. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This time around more experience has not altered my initial impressions (posted last page). I would add that the biggest difference I have found is the scenarios--they don't play or feel the same way matched ones do (which is good). But overall PtG3 just feels like Matched with extra steps.

Also high model count units are handled badly by the system because they rake up casualty counts since they lose tons of models every game. Sure they can recover for a glory cost, but one is far better off just dropping them and paying to add a new unit at full strength.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

This time around more experience has not altered my initial impressions (posted last page). I would add that the biggest difference I have found is the scenarios--they don't play or feel the same way matched ones do (which is good). But overall PtG3 just feels like Matched with extra steps.

Also high model count units are handled badly by the system because they rake up casualty counts since they lose tons of models every game. Sure they can recover for a glory cost, but one is far better off just dropping them and paying to add a new unit at full strength.

Thanks for the rundown :) Do you think some of these issues would be easily fixed by houserules, or are they intrinsic to the system and so not really easy to edit out? 

Also, while it may be a little hard to say, do you think the 'matched play but with extra steps' feel is firmly planted within the rules, or do you think it comes from a lack of rules? E.g. would more battletome PTG pages help fix this issue (ignoring the balancing), or are the fundamentals 'broke'? 

When trying to play narrative games in the past, it's often devolved into people trying to one up one another by taking the best thing on their PTG roster and ending up with a few hundred points over everyone else. While a lot of that is a player issue, it does seem like the new system may fix some of this with its points values of battles, but on the other hand is does encourage people to take the matched play way and just bring the best 600 points they can. I think we may keep in the 'growing army' theme (as in, you can't switch out units unless it's an upgrade - e.g. Chaos Sorcerer Lord becoming Chaos Sorcerer Lord on Manticore), but I'd really like it if there was a way to make the warlord better than just sticking artefacts on them.

One thing I noticed, and this could have just been be misreading something, but you seem to get loads of enhancements as points/tiers increase but it doesn't seem like there's any support in using those enhancements. E.g. If you only have two heroes, one will have an artefact and trait already, and then I guess you can stick an artefact on the other one with an enhancement, but after that when army size and tiers increase are you just expected to put a load of heroes in the army who can benefit from these enhancements (otherwise you just can't use them)? Am I understanding this incorrectly?

Just on a glancing read, I'd have really appreciated more customisation for every unit to make it feel like an evolving narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fundamentals are great--the best thing about PtG3 is the fundamentals. A few rough spots but nothing that can't be fixed with house rules. The biggest drawback to the core of PtG3 is outside the system itself; by using the same army building as matched play it will be host to all the same paradigms and imbalances.

That OP character will still be OP. The auto-take artifacts will still be taken. The best sub-faction will still be the one everyone uses. When I play narrative it is specifically because I want to get away from all that, which leads to my personal dislike of PtG3 even though I recognize the quality of the system. But this also isn't a problem with the rules of PtG3 but rather a problem with GWs legendary incompetence at balancing.

The real problem with PtG3 is that while it has a great set of fundamentals, that's it. There is nothing built on those fundamentals. All those fun and thematic ways to gain renown don't mean much when progression barely exists. Lingering casualties stacked on your favorite unit lack impact when the most efficient way to clear them is to delete the unit and re-add it to clear everything. There is structure for running a campaign but no campaigns to use it in. Players are just left with a system to track the progression of their force but with nothing to progress towards be it for individual units or the army as a whole.

But there is still fun to be had. Campaigns goals can be created by individual communities. Extra ways to spend xp can be house rules in. And every army is coming in at the same level so there is camaraderie in making the 'wild west' of PtG3 work. For now.

Soon there will be 3rd edition battletomes packed with content to give flesh to the skeleton of PtG3. And that will make things so much worse. Because then there will be haves and have-nots with a sharp divide between the two. When everyone is dealing with the same content issue there is still parity and a shared experience. Once battletomes hit some armies will, in a practical sense, be playing an entirely different game system. Even if they are by some miracle not getting a massive power boost from it, that disparity of status is a massive fun-killer. Players feel left out to dry for showing up with the army they like. The entire idea of forging a unique identity goes out the window because only those with new battletomes get the chance. It tears out the heart of what makes a narrative system fun. And we know this because that's where 40k Crusade is at.

 

Ultimately my message is to enjoy what you can while you can and keep fingers crossed that GW will step in with White Dwarf and/or supplements to make sure everyone gets their extras in short order.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Path to glorious paper work 3.0 for me.

I have gone through the book so many times, roughly 48 or so pages back to back of making adaptations, but as usual, the fundamental core system does not want this because its going to bog down any chance to get a game in. Spend more time reading how to play and what even to do vs the short gameplay feels intentional to me. I would just like this looked at by GW and to listen to the people who give feedback:  I want to play this system and ultimately enjoy it more than once, but until I can make  a whole new one or update  PTG3.0, Either way I have this on hold because I don't have the time for it sadly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I like the concepts of PTG3, but I do have some issues when I look at it from a league style campaign perspective.

1. There are no victory conditions. It is completely open ended. The original AoS PtG was a race to a set Glory point Total. This one makes no mention of how it is intended to end. Without a set victory condition or set time limit, these things tend to fizzle out over time.

2. It is too self contained. Kind of related to the first issue. But there are only 2 ways you opponent can impact you; casualties and limiting the points you earn. There is more potential for disruption, like sacking or taking over territory. You get trounced? Just play a few a few games against some random and you will be ahead of your opponent in the next rematch.

3. Outposts. Don't mention it without covering what they do.

I think there will be some campaign supplements that might address these issues. Lots of potential, but ultimately it's incomplete.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...