A Town Called Malus wrote:
So consolidate power weapons back to just being power weapons. Now somebody can model their dude with an axe, or a hammer, or a sword, or whatever they want without needing to worry that by doing so they are making them worse in the game.

Have yet to meet another player in real life who would bitch about me having modelled a sword on my guy and using the stats of a hammer for it.

Karol wrote:
There is one archon model. So there is one set of gear for him.

You realise the Dark Eldar kits are pretty much all compatible with each other, right?

As in, you can give that Archon model any gear you can give to a Scourge or a Wych or a Kabalite etc.

Karol wrote:
Cpts have various models with multiple set ups,

"GW gives more love to faction A than to faction B, therefore it's much fairer that faction A gets far more options than Faction B."

This is the level we've sunk to to defend GW's garbage policies, apparently.

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
There is one archon model. So there is one set of gear for him.

You realise the Dark Eldar kits are pretty much all compatible with each other, right?

As in, you can give that Archon model any gear you can give to a Scourge or a Wych or a Kabalite etc.

Karol wrote:
Cpts have various models with multiple set ups,

"GW gives more love to faction A than to faction B, therefore it's much fairer that faction A gets far more options than Faction B."

This is the level we've sunk to to defend GW's garbage policies, apparently.

I don't understand your question or the argument you put forth. GW seems to be on a strickt no model, no rules direction, specially as far as non codex marine armies goes. Plus it has nothing to do with fair or unfair. Marines have more players, so making those players unhappy is a bigger risk for GW, then I don't know GK players or 1ksons players being unhappy. This has nothing to do with defending this or that policy GW has. I care not for DE unit options or their players in the slightest, but the reality of GW releases is what it is. DE already got two extra character models in their codex drop, in the form of two special characters, which GW can market up higher then regular HQs, so even that makes perfect sense. If GW were to be given new plastic characters it would have to be in some sort wave two release, but those generally happen to armies that get full line updates like SoB or Necron or primaris.

Karol wrote:
I don't understand your question or the argument you put forth.

So you don't understand what I'm saying, you just know I'm wrong?

Karol wrote:
GW seems to be on a strickt no model, no rules direction, specially as far as non codex marine armies goes.

Yes, and I'm saying they should shove that policy up their backsides. Preferably followed by a cactus.

Karol wrote:
Plus it has nothing to do with fair or unfair. Marines have more players, so making those players unhappy is a bigger risk for GW, then I don't know GK players or 1ksons players being unhappy.

The situation you're describing is, by definition, unfair.

What's more, the argument doesn't even make sense. If GW thinks that the number of people playing non-Marine armies is so insignificant then why does it care about 3rd parties getting in on the action? Are you saying that there are enough Dark Eldar players to support a thriving 3rd-party bits industry, yet not enough to warrant Games Workshop making new Dark Eldar units themselves? Because that must be a bloody specific number of players.

Karol wrote:
I care not for DE unit options or their players in the slightest

Noted. I'll be sure to show the same level of sympathy when it comes to the armies you play and care about.

Karol wrote:
DE already got two extra character models in their codex drop, in the form of two special characters, which GW can market up higher then regular HQs, so even that makes perfect sense. If GW were to be given new plastic characters it would have to be in some sort wave two release, but those generally happen to armies that get full line updates like SoB or Necron or primaris.

I know, right. Because giving Dark Eldar a first wave release that consisted of more than 1 model was just an impossible task. Definitely no resources went into unnecessary crap like Primaris Lieutenant #50314/b (now with limited edition slightly bigger shoulder pads (TM)!).

By the end of 8e I was playing a lot of games, taking part in quite a few TTS competitions with ITS rules, and having a blast leaning into competitive play.

I rate ITS 8e as superior to what we have now in 9e for a number of reasons; while it rewarded killing too much it still offered depth in objective play, and basically prefigured a lot of what 9e has tried to do, while solving a lot of what 9e is oblivious to (ie first turn syndrome). It was also in the hands of the community, and so it was reflexive and timely in its changes, based on community ideas. It had a lot of flaws but it worked, and it felt like players had some ownership of the game, and it acted as a check and balance on some of the problems with the game.

Now nearly a year into 9e I have retreated fully into head-canon fluffy play, when I play at all. No longer trying to compete, no longer interested in travelling for competitions, no longer interested in mining new codexes for threats and divinations as to where the game is going. I now play my Krieg and accept that I will lose over half my games, and just have fun playing. You know what? The league I helped build, which is full of amazing, friendly, competitive players who are a joy to play, have also gone cold on the game. The problems with the business model and how it impinges on the hobby experience are just too egregious now to ignore without feeling like a rube.

So while, if you squint, this might look vaguely like a heartwarming story of a competitive player finding equanimity with their hobby, It's also a story of how a guy who was crazy into this game has now semi-retired from it. I haven't bought any new kits in over a year. Am selling off half-started projects and full armies. Have gone over almost entirely to a better game run by a small comany that still has its soul and isn't charging heinous amounts of money for rules and points changes... And I no longer worry about the state of the game, because it's not really my concern anymore - there's life outside Gee Dub.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Galas wrote:
They told you to make the stuff yoursel because back then they didn't sold you an alternative.

Now, according to Dakka, it is "Elitism" and "Gatekeeping" (or whatever buzzword they want to throw around this week...) to suggest players have to do some modelling in a hobby that involves modelling of some extent.

Yeah, great times back then .

3rd edition ork codex is a perfect example. I litterally fell in love with orks in 3rd edition and mostly because of the unlimited possibilities of scratch building pretty much everything. In that codex basically half of the units didn't have an official kit and basically half of the wargear wasn't included in the boxes, so yeah GW encouraged to make stuff yourself because they didn't sell the alternative, that's true. But there were also examples of scratch built stuff representing models that they DID sell, like more than a Dreadnought, some Trukks, terrain and also how to get different poses for the official models, which involved cutting legs/arms and use some green stuff.

I don't know if it was Elitism or Gatekeeping in some form, I only know that I was 12, with no clue how to convert stuff properly, and I absolutely loved making my own vehicles and specialists!

 grouchoben wrote:
By the end of 8e I was playing a lot of games, taking part in quite a few TTS competitions with ITS rules, and having a blast leaning into competitive play.

I rate ITS 8e as superior to what we have now in 9e for a number of reasons; while it rewarded killing too much it still offered depth in objective play, and basically prefigured a lot of what 9e has tried to do, while solving a lot of what 9e is oblivious to (ie first turn syndrome). It was also in the hands of the community, and so it was reflexive and timely in its changes, based on community ideas. It had a lot of flaws but it worked, and it felt like players had some ownership of the game, and it acted as a check and balance on some of the problems with the game.

Now nearly a year into 9e I have retreated fully into head-canon fluffy play, when I play at all. No longer trying to compete, no longer interested in travelling for competitions, no longer interested in mining new codexes for threats and divinations as to where the game is going. I now play my Krieg and accept that I will lose over half my games, and just have fun playing. You know what? The league I helped build, which is full of amazing, friendly, competitive players who are a joy to play, have also gone cold on the game. The problems with the business model and how it impinges on the hobby experience are just too egregious now to ignore without feeling like a rube.

So while, if you squint, this might look vaguely like a heartwarming story of a competitive player finding equanimity with their hobby, It's also a story of how a guy who was crazy into this game has now semi-retired from it. I haven't bought any new kits in over a year. Am selling off half-started projects and full armies. Have gone over almost entirely to a better game run by a small comany that still has its soul and isn't charging heinous amounts of money for rules and points changes... And I no longer worry about the state of the game, because it's not really my concern anymore - there's life outside Gee Dub.

This is what I'm talking about or at least part of it. I'm sorry for how you ended up but I can see how we all get to this point. I was right there with you, it feels bad man. For lack of a better term.

It is no surprise the old guys like me who knew 40K way before 8th edition (back in the era of 3rd + and played them), have gone back to playing the older versions of the game we liked best.

 aphyon wrote:
It is no surprise the old guys like me who knew 40K way before 8th edition (back in the era of 3rd + and played them), have gone back to playing the older versions of the game we liked best.

Some of us have.

I started with Rogue Trader in 89, though I didn't kick in to high gear until Space Hulk in 92.

And as far as I'm concerned, Crusade is the best 40k has ever been. I spent 30 years trying to make 40k into Crusade and meeting resistance because it was all house rules. Now I finally have the game I always wanted.

PenitentJake wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
It is no surprise the old guys like me who knew 40K way before 8th edition (back in the era of 3rd + and played them), have gone back to playing the older versions of the game we liked best.

Some of us have.

I started with Rogue Trader in 89, though I didn't kick in to high gear until Space Hulk in 92.

And as far as I'm concerned, Crusade is the best 40k has ever been. I spent 30 years trying to make 40k into Crusade and meeting resistance because it was all house rules. Now I finally have the game I always wanted.

Its quite funny to me that modern 40k tends to dislike house rules when the official rules are probably worse. I feel like someone writing house rules would probably try to make more of an effort to make their rules balanced because they have more accountability for them than GW has for their junk.

the 40k community was always pretty negative to houserules

the only one that was common was no names units and no Forgeworld, and this only because GW wrote in the rules "you need to ask you opponent to use them" so it was just forbidden everywhere by default

it really needed something bad like 7th that houserules were kind of accepted and than with 8th all was forgotten and official rules only

on the other hand, with WHFB houserules were there by default and it was very uncommen to play the game as written by GW

PenitentJake wrote:
And as far as I'm concerned, Crusade is the best 40k has ever been. I spent 30 years trying to make 40k into Crusade and meeting resistance because it was all house rules. Now I finally have the game I always wanted.

What do you like best about crusade?

My group didn't seem too interested in it but I'd love to sell them on it sometime and try it out.

We still house a bit- I've got a 25 PL Crusade that is a Vanguard rather than a Patrol, for example, which is technically verboten.

Another one is requisition strats that grant relics; you can use a requisition to grant a relic to a character, but you can't use that to give a sergeant a relic, though some strats allow it. So the way we handle it is you pay an RP for the strat that allows the sergeant to equip with a relic, but you still have to pay for the requisition that grants the relic.

But that's an easier sell than "Hey, here's my 20 page progression system; I've figured out the faction specific stuff for the factions I play, but you guys will have to come up with faction specific stuff for yourselves if you want it."

 kodos wrote:
the 40k community was always pretty negative to houserules

I think it's just because it's such a palaver. Unless you play with a small group of like-minded individuals then you can probably expect a lot of wariness about anyone using house- or homebrew rules.

 vipoid wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the 40k community was always pretty negative to houserules

I think it's just because it's such a palaver. Unless you play with a small group of like-minded individuals then you can probably expect a lot of wariness about anyone using house- or homebrew rules.

sure, but it was never a problem in Fantasy, meet a random guy to play, quick talk about which house rules they use and what we want to use for the game, done

while in 40k mentioning that you might want to use house rules was already too much

Karol wrote: care not for DE unit options or their players in the slightest

That's pretty rich considering half your posts are complaining about how changes to the game have negatively impacted your GK, as if you expect others to care about your options and you.

The Red Hobbit wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
And as far as I'm concerned, Crusade is the best 40k has ever been. I spent 30 years trying to make 40k into Crusade and meeting resistance because it was all house rules. Now I finally have the game I always wanted.

What do you like best about crusade?

My group didn't seem too interested in it but I'd love to sell them on it sometime and try it out.

Not the person you asked, but Crusade is a solid progression system that can be used on its own or integrated into a campaign. It allows for a naturally evolving slow-grow environment and provides a sense of evolution to your force and the units within it. It's fairly lightweight and easy to implement but adds a lot of flavor to the game.

It also incentivizes narrative play over raw competitiveness, so can help shoehorn that approach to the game back in if your group is riding the one-upmanship train.

I like it quite a bit.

 catbarf wrote:
Not the person you asked, but Crusade is a solid progression system that can be used on its own or integrated into a campaign. It allows for a naturally evolving slow-grow environment and provides a sense of evolution to your force and the units within it. It's fairly lightweight and easy to implement but adds a lot of flavor to the game.

It also incentivizes narrative play over raw competitiveness, so can help shoehorn that approach to the game back in if your group is riding the one-upmanship train.

I like it quite a bit.

Well I'm glad you answered! Sounds like a really good system, I'm usually a fan of lightweight bolt-ons. The last time our group tried a progression system it was Shadow War Armageddon and while the game had it's moments, it had a lot of not fun parts too. Are there a lot of incentives in Crusade to play your dudes instead of <insert named character>?

 catbarf wrote:

The Red Hobbit wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
And as far as I'm concerned, Crusade is the best 40k has ever been. I spent 30 years trying to make 40k into Crusade and meeting resistance because it was all house rules. Now I finally have the game I always wanted.

What do you like best about crusade?

My group didn't seem too interested in it but I'd love to sell them on it sometime and try it out.

Not the person you asked, but Crusade is a solid progression system that can be used on its own or integrated into a campaign. It allows for a naturally evolving slow-grow environment and provides a sense of evolution to your force and the units within it. It's fairly lightweight and easy to implement but adds a lot of flavor to the game.

It also incentivizes narrative play over raw competitiveness, so can help shoehorn that approach to the game back in if your group is riding the one-upmanship train.

I like it quite a bit.

Sorry Red, missed the question. CB is on the money. I'll add a few specifics.

First, it needs to be said that one of the things that makes Crusade great is a built in feature of all three ways to play, which is the way games are now built to scale; having four sizes of game, which controls A) table size B) army size C) number of detachments and D) number of secondaries/ agendas and mission support for all four sizes is absolutely integral to Crusade, which uses an escalation style as part of the progression system. Escalation is a concept that started being incorporated into games as far back as 3rd edition at least (and possibly even earlier), but without this scaling feature, previous versions of escalation were weak by comparison.

So Crusade's progression system allows you to make growing the size of your army a priority; the four sizes of play make this more rewarding by lending a "Rites of Passage" feel to the process. But growing your army is only one of many goals you can set for your army. You can also look at "skilling up," so your force may remain small, but every unit in it can acquire skills and/ or equipment, allowing them to punch above their weight. This is fantastic for slow painters and folks with limited hobby budgets.

By far, the best part for me is the bespoke content that comes in every dex. Thus far, I've got the dexes for SM (with the Deathwatch Supplement), Drukhari, Admech and Sisters. Because Marines came first, and because the marine dex has so many data cards, I found their bespoke content to be interesting, but not amazing. On the plus side, Marines have the potential to pull bespoke content from the dex and a supplement, which somewhat makes up for it.

The other three dexes on the list are top notch for Crusade content. Sisters can fall from grace, swear a penitent oath to become repentia and earn redemption; their characters can become senior level Cannoness Matrons who bestow miraculous blessings, or even Living Saints. Drukhari can seize territory in Commorragh, and leverage controlled territories to entice units of specialist troops to accompany them on realspace raids- it's like having a Necromunda style minigame built right into the dex. Admech scavenge the destroyed tech of their enemies and use it to build nightmare machines.

One of the things that this type of progression system allows you to achieve improvements to units which, on their own may not be competitive. So you'll hear matched players all the time talk about "throw away" or "garbage" units. Yet one of those models might be your favourite thing in your faction; in competitive play, it's a liability to include it in your army... Which SUCKS. In Crusade, you take that unit, attach a few requisition strats (which become permanent in Crusade), relics and warlord traits and then wait for it to earn battle honours... And suddenly it becomes the unit you always thought it should be. The darker side of this, of course, is that if you are TFG, you can also take a slightly overpowered unit and use Crusade's progression system to make it absolutely BROKEN... But again, if you're TFG, there are just as many things you can do to break matched play.

For modelling enthusiasts, the progressions are an AMAZING excuse to convert. My Hospitaller and Dialogus, for example, are going to be built with magnets in their backs so that I can use basic sisters backpacks when they start green and add the bling as they level up. You can pick a head to magnetize and swap it with different bodies as they grow- I've got a Dominion who will become a Dominion Superior at Blooded, a Palatine at Battle Hardened, a Cannoness at Heroic and a Cannoness Commander at Legendary.

If you write fan fic, battle reports become full blown stories, because units gain battle honours by achieving agendas and receive battle scars in particularly difficult fights.

Now here's a caveat: Crusade isn't perfect- there are some things that some folks wanted out of the system that they didn't get. Some feel like death and injury aren't as big a deal as they should be. Others wanted a campaign system built into Crusade. Still others feel like the bespoke content limits people to telling only certain kinds of stories with their dudes. These are all legitimate concerns, though many can be mitigated. My problem with the vocal chorus of folks that always chime in after I sing the praises of Crusade is that they let the things they didn't get out of the system get in the way of appreciating all the things that DID get. Often, they balk at the idea of taking the mitigating steps I spoke of because they feel they shouldn't have to take any extra steps or use extra resources in order to play the kind of games they want.

Their opinions aren't wrong, par se; Crusade COULD be improved by adding the things they want added, and I too want many of the things they want. The only difference is I choose to appreciate the things Crusade DID give me. And there's also the potential that GW will release a Crusade supplement book that includes these things once all the dexes are out.

One final Caveat; I don't feel like Crusade Mission Packs are quite Crusadey enough; Beyond the Veil had some good stuff, but not as much as I wanted. Plague Purge had even less Crusade type content than Beyond the Veil. Conversely, the Campaign books that are marketed for their matched play rules actually had more of the kind of stuff I'd expect from a Crusade specific resource.

And finally- sorry if it seems passive aggressive to anticipate a counter argument. But me and some of the other Dakkanaughts have done this dance many, many times.

Crusade is terrible because I haven't got my Tyranid Crusade rules yet.

And I do genuinely hope the Tyranid content is smokin! when we get it. I will definitely be adding that dex to the collection.

PenitentJake wrote:
...But me and some of the other Dakkanaughts have done this dance many, many times.

Pretty much. I read Crusade as an improvement on just playing tournament 9th, but when I've played Crusade in the past I've still gotten quickly tabled by 'casual' lists and told I need to go buy minis I don't particularly like before I can participate. If you don't mind playing 9th in the first place Crusade is great. If you already don't like 9th Crusade is a half-assed band-aid that doesn't actually fix anything.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you already don't like 9th Crusade is a half-assed band-aid that doesn't actually fix anything.

Seems to imply that Crusade was trying to fix something...

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...But me and some of the other Dakkanaughts have done this dance many, many times.

Pretty much. I read Crusade as an improvement on just playing tournament 9th, but when I've played Crusade in the past I've still gotten quickly tabled by 'casual' lists and told I need to go buy minis I don't particularly like before I can participate. If you don't mind playing 9th in the first place Crusade is great. If you already don't like 9th Crusade is a half-assed band-aid that doesn't actually fix anything.

You could probably slap crusade on any edition of 40k with less effort than it takes to iron out all the flaws from those editions.

From our last talk on this I also gathered that you mostly play armies who hadn't had their codex yet - from my DG and orks I can tell you that it makes a huge difference for crusade.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...But me and some of the other Dakkanaughts have done this dance many, many times.

Pretty much. I read Crusade as an improvement on just playing tournament 9th, but when I've played Crusade in the past I've still gotten quickly tabled by 'casual' lists and told I need to go buy minis I don't particularly like before I can participate. If you don't mind playing 9th in the first place Crusade is great. If you already don't like 9th Crusade is a half-assed band-aid that doesn't actually fix anything.

Our answer to this is classic kill teams 4th/5th ed-
5-12 models taken from any part of your codex with up to 40 points of entry wargear for the unit, included for the starting total of 250 points. 1 leader, vehicles up to combined AV 33 (was 32 until the necron light vehicles came out) and up to 3 specialists with a USR that shows battlefield skill but does not change a units type or weapon. everybody is effectively an army of one working as a team.

The only restrictions are-the above restriction on vehicles (really makes light vehicles shine), no named characters, monsterous creatures or flyers.

There is an official percentile progressive wound chart and a skill upgrade experience system.

My current kill team is (they are all named)
(leader)
Hansi
.librarian in terminator armor with force weapon, storm shield and 2 powers. his current wound is horrific scars-causing fear he has also spent gameplay XP to increase his wounds to 3 (the max allowed)
-special skill USR-it will not die
(team)
Tobias
.vanguard vet with storm shield & power fist -gameplay XP spent to increase his wounds to 2- special skill USR-feel no pain
Klaus
.scout with heavy bolter-his current wound-hatred of the specific model that wounded him in the last game. special skill USR-relentless
Udo
.sterngaurd vet-his current wound- minus 1 initiative, hatred of the kill team that last wounded him -gameplay XP spent to increase his wounds to 2-
Andre
.sterngaurd vet-gameplay XP spent to increase his wounds to 2

It is loads of fun, easy to track and not nearly as book keeping heavy as crusade. It also doesn't push you to increase the size of your kill team. you can spend XP to increase stats, buy more wargear or more kill team members up to a max of 12 models.
.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...But me and some of the other Dakkanaughts have done this dance many, many times.

Pretty much. I read Crusade as an improvement on just playing tournament 9th, but when I've played Crusade in the past I've still gotten quickly tabled by 'casual' lists and told I need to go buy minis I don't particularly like before I can participate. If you don't mind playing 9th in the first place Crusade is great. If you already don't like 9th Crusade is a half-assed band-aid that doesn't actually fix anything.

You could probably slap crusade on any edition of 40k with less effort than it takes to iron out all the flaws from those editions.

From our last talk on this I also gathered that you mostly play armies who hadn't had their codex yet - from my DG and orks I can tell you that it makes a huge difference for crusade.

I mean, sure, Crusade is probably more fun if you have Crusade content, but if my options are "buy a different army" or "wait months or years for GW's random dartboard of balance to pick up minis you like as things that are allowed to be playable" in the casual-narrative-fun-mode I'm going to take a third option and go play a different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:
...It is loads of fun, easy to track and not nearly as book keeping heavy as crusade. It also doesn't push you to increase the size of your kill team. you can spend XP to increase stats, buy more wargear or more kill team members up to a max of 12 models.
.

I don't mind bookkeeping/record-keeping at all; if you look at my sig there's a link there to my (unfinished) attempt to port 40k minis to the Necromunda system.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I mean, sure, Crusade is probably more fun if you have Crusade content, but if my options are "buy a different army" or "wait months or years for GW's random dartboard of balance to pick up minis you like as things that are allowed to be playable" in the casual-narrative-fun-mode I'm going to take a third option and go play a different game.

That's not the fault of the Crusade system though, nor is it in any way indicative of its quality.

How is it not the crusade systems fault? GW wrote the rules. They could have made a pdf update for all the armies without a codex, or even made an sold a transition book with crusade rules for all armies, but they decided not to do it, and follow the usual way of updating stuff they do for all their games.

And if the core of crusade is having the extra rules, then it is hard to imagine how people are suppose to enjoy it. Specially when they have to play vs people who have those rules already.

I didn't like Crusade.
Fundementally I felt the game was still the same, but now you've bolted on a even more crap like relics, warlord traits, and special abilities.

When it comes to encouraging narrative it doesn't really hit the spot, it's very easy to just select the 'best' abilities, which also leads to experienced crusade armies absolutely dominating inexperienced armies.

So if you're just using 'Crusade' as a standalone, I think it falls at every hurdle.
But it does have potential to act as the progression system behind a campaign or string of linked missions.

The game is overly complicated and very unfriendly for newcomers. It seems to be catering to die hard competitive players with an encyclopedic mind. The buckets of dice rolling involved break the flow of the game constantly and feel less like playing a strategic tabletop game, and more like betting at the Casino. The degree of customization (relics, doctrines, stratagems etc) becomes awkward really quickly starting at 1000+ pts games. Some datasheets are bloated with special rules, even for simple troops. Infantry is vastly overpowered (or undercosted) compared to most vehicles.

Also, i know that alternative activation is not the holy grail, but the bigger the armies, the more boring it becomes to start 2nd and wait for your actual first turn.

It blows my mind that some of the better KT and Apocalypse rules have not been baked into 40K already.

I remember the streams for the launch of 9th edition with rules-writers being all self-satisfied about the bloating of the game (that they didn't perceive) and its lack of tactically rewarding gameplay.

The game is basically a hot mess since the second SM 8th edition codex, but arguably the seeds were planted before that.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I didn't like Crusade.
Fundementally I felt the game was still the same, but now you've bolted on a even more crap like relics, warlord traits, and special abilities.

When it comes to encouraging narrative it doesn't really hit the spot, it's very easy to just select the 'best' abilities, which also leads to experienced crusade armies absolutely dominating inexperienced armies.

So if you're just using 'Crusade' as a standalone, I think it falls at every hurdle.
But it does have potential to act as the progression system behind a campaign or string of linked missions.

Agree - playing crusade just for the sake of crusade doesn't do much. It's great for basing campaigns on though or even "just" a story that ties missions together.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Crusade is terrible because I haven't got my Tyranid Crusade rules yet.

Put that monkeys paw down.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Put that monkeys paw down.

Ain't that the fething truth...

Karol wrote:
How is it not the crusade systems fault? GW wrote the rules.

You cannot blame an orange because it's not an apple. They wrote the Crusade system to do one thing, and some armies don't have their Crusade rules yet because they don't have a 9th Edition Codex. That's not a failure of the Crusade rules any more than 9th is a failure because every army hasn't got an up to date Codex.

Karol wrote:
They could have made a pdf update for all the armies without a codex, or even made an sold a transition book with crusade rules for all armies, but they decided not to do it, and follow the usual way of updating stuff they do for all their games.

But they didn't, which sucks, but that doesn't make the Crusade system a failure.

Karol wrote:
And if the core of crusade is having the extra rules, then it is hard to imagine how people are suppose to enjoy it.

Well, people are enjoying it, so that would make it pretty easy to imagine, given you don't need to actually imagine it; it's already happening!

Karol wrote:
Specially when they have to play vs people who have those rules already.

Any more than an 8th vs a 9th Codex? Your complaint is nonsensical.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
But it does have potential to act as the progression system behind a campaign or string of linked missions.

Which is precisely what it is: A progression system.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Not the person you asked, but Crusade is a solid progression system that can be used on its own or integrated into a campaign. It allows for a naturally evolving slow-grow environment and provides a sense of evolution to your force and the units within it. It's fairly lightweight and easy to implement but adds a lot of flavor to the game.

It also incentivizes narrative play over raw competitiveness, so can help shoehorn that approach to the game back in if your group is riding the one-upmanship train.

I like it quite a bit.

Well I'm glad you answered! Sounds like a really good system, I'm usually a fan of lightweight bolt-ons. The last time our group tried a progression system it was Shadow War Armageddon and while the game had it's moments, it had a lot of not fun parts too. Are there a lot of incentives in Crusade to play your dudes instead of <insert named character>?

Ohhhhhhhhh yeah. Named characters can be used but they basically get nothing out of Crusade - no experience points gain at all. they dont get injured, but basically they just dont play crusade.

personally I really enjoy Crusade. i find it dodges most of what make campaign systems miserable.

-most of the stuff in your 40k army is going to die every game, because it's 40k, so you're going to be making injury rolls with your untis pretty often if you play a lot of games, so any unit that gets SUPA DUPA PUMPED UP is probably also going to have 2-3 battle scars balancing that out

-your opponent gets several bonus CP to make up for all your crusade bonuses if you're a newbie playing vs a crusade vet

-you can just freely add units, like, at any time. There's no 'oh my dudes died, so now I cant use this unit any more" if you're playing a fixed collection and a unit 'dies' or takes injuries that make them worse than theyd normally be, you can instantly add them back in with 0xp.

-it lets the armies that dont get variable equipment on their characters (cough cough anyone not a space marine) have distinctions for 'their dudes' that they wouldnt ordinarily get

-it also kind of rewards having variable Take All Comers units, because if you take a super specialized squad, youre going to get random bonuses for them and have to pay more RP to reconfigure them after the fact.

Battlescars weren't that bad. If you get one that has a significant effect on the unit, I found I consistently had plenty of requisition points to just heal it away.

The pittance in CP given to the underdog doesn't even begin to address the imbalance.
For giving away 1/2 a CP I get +1 to all moves on my melee unit for the entire game? I'll be laughing all the way across the board. And I don't even have to give away that bonus CP if my melee unit also suffered -1 BS? Let me laugh even harder.
Remember you can choose all of this stuff, iirc you can even choose your Battle Scars so you'll never get something that's actually bad if you don't want it.

Crusade has it's place, but it's definitely not a balanced system that's fair to play against 'normal' armies or even against people with less developed crusade forces.

PenitentJake wrote:
Sorry Red, missed the question. CB is on the money. I'll add a few specifics.

The other three dexes on the list are top notch for Crusade content. Sisters can fall from grace, swear a penitent oath to become repentia and earn redemption; their characters can become senior level Cannoness Matrons who bestow miraculous blessings, or even Living Saints. Drukhari can seize territory in Commorragh, and leverage controlled territories to entice units of specialist troops to accompany them on realspace raids- it's like having a Necromunda style minigame built right into the dex. Admech scavenge the destroyed tech of their enemies and use it to build nightmare machines.

Hey thanks for the indepth answer! I'm glad to hear Crusade allows both types of play, either growing your force or keeping it small but highly skilled. The Crusade rules for SoB, Dark Eldar and AdMech sound really great, I had no idea they'd allow for that kind of play. With Codex's having outdated points, rules in need of errata and shrinking lore sections I haven't been too keen on them, but these Crusade sections are a great selling point.

One of the things that this type of progression system allows you to achieve improvements to units which, on their own may not be competitive. So you'll hear matched players all the time talk about "throw away" or "garbage" units. Yet one of those models might be your favourite thing in your faction

Finally a chance for my Fire Dragons and Lootas to shine!

And finally- sorry if it seems passive aggressive to anticipate a counter argument. But me and some of the other Dakkanaughts have done this dance many, many times.

No worries, I didn't read any overly passive aggressive bits there. Plus it's the internet, if your argument doesn't start off iron-clad there's always someone out there eager to pounce on a small snippet and ignore the rest. Really appreciate the well written response!

 the_scotsman wrote:

Ohhhhhhhhh yeah. Named characters can be used but they basically get nothing out of Crusade - no experience points gain at all. they dont get injured, but basically they just dont play crusade.

-you can just freely add units, like, at any time. There's no 'oh my dudes died, so now I cant use this unit any more" if you're playing a fixed collection and a unit 'dies' or takes injuries that make them worse than theyd normally be, you can instantly add them back in with 0xp.

Heck yeah! I really enjoy named characters when it fits like the viking saga of the Space Wolves but for other armies I always prefer a 'your dudes' HQ myself.

I'm a bit confused on the bringing people back part. Sounds like if a unit gets filled up with injuries you can just retire them then bring the exact same unit back? Hmm, not sure how I feel about that one. On one hand it's great if you've got a limited hobby budget. On the other hand I was hoping Crusade play would reward playstyles that don't involve kamikaze rushes like you see in matched play. Like you wouldn't want to go for a 'trade' and sacrifice a unit if you knew there was no replenishment coming.

In any event I've heard a lot of good reasons to try out Crusade. I'm looking forward to giving it a try in the future.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Battlescars weren't that bad. If you get one that has a significant effect on the unit, I found I consistently had plenty of requisition points to just heal it away.

The pittance in CP given to the underdog doesn't even begin to address the imbalance.
For giving away 1/2 a CP I get +1 to all moves on my melee unit for the entire game? I'll be laughing all the way across the board. And I don't even have to give away that bonus CP if my melee unit also suffered -1 BS? Let me laugh even harder.
Remember you can choose all of this stuff, iirc you can even choose your Battle Scars so you'll never get something that's actually bad if you don't want it.

Crusade has it's place, but it's definitely not a balanced system that's fair to play against 'normal' armies or even against people with less developed crusade forces.

Theres no '-1 ballistic skill' disadvantage you can pick on your melee unit, but, point taken. If you decide to powergame your crusade bonuses and battle scars, decide that the best bonus that 'fits the narrative' is always the one that adds the most power, and the best battle scar that 'fits the narrative' is the one that doesnt impact the unit's performance at all, and treat the crusade system as another strategic level system to gain an advantage over your opponent, then it can be very much an imbalanced system. Yep.

It works well as a system for similarly-minded narrative focused players to introduce a degree of continuity and variance to the game without *inherently* destroying game balance or creating a 'win more' scenario for the person who pulls ahead.

Which makes it better than...lets see...100% of every other 40k campaign system that actively alter the in game rules that I've played.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Which makes it better than...lets see...100% of every other 40k campaign system that actively alter the in game rules that I've played.

I think this is subjective - for some of us, we want campaigns to be more meaningful, some people want them to be less meaningful. (Though I do agree that historically 40k has always been a bit naff without houserules on the narrative front).

Crusade can be played as a set of pick-up games with no narrative links (save for unit XP gains), or more effort can be put in to link the battles together.

Other campaign rules systems from other games (like Chain of Command) have much better campaign rules, which ironically don't include a progression system - a unit won't go from "Green" to "Crack Shock Troops" in like 10 engagements like they can in 40k. If anything, they'll suffer losses and be degraded in pretty much every way except (possibly) morale (depending on how successful those engagements went).

If Crusade was anything like CoC's "At The Sharp End" as far as generic campaign systems go, I'd appreciate it a lot more.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Which makes it better than...lets see...100% of every other 40k campaign system that actively alter the in game rules that I've played.

I think this is subjective - for some of us, we want campaigns to be more meaningful, some people want them to be less meaningful. (Though I do agree that historically 40k has always been a bit naff without houserules on the narrative front).

Crusade can be played as a set of pick-up games with no narrative links (save for unit XP gains), or more effort can be put in to link the battles together.

Other campaign rules systems from other games (like Chain of Command) have much better campaign rules, which ironically don't include a progression system - a unit won't go from "Green" to "Crack Shock Troops" in like 10 engagements like they can in 40k. If anything, they'll suffer losses and be degraded in pretty much every way except (possibly) morale (depending on how successful those engagements went).

If Crusade was anything like CoC's "At The Sharp End" as far as generic campaign systems go, I'd appreciate it a lot more.

People typically dont go into a 40k campaign looking to simulate a real prolonged military engagement. When people want a campaign, what they want is to have their units "level up" most of the time.

The most successful crusade system I've ever run basically only impacted the map (as in, the terrain on the battlefield and its effects) and the mission being played. Everyone got to pick a couple special central character traits for their 'protagonist character' at the beginning of the campaign, and that character got those traits when they were included in a list. That was it.

I had designated terrain sets and mats for each region, and if players were fighting over that region, they played on that terrain set, and every terrain set had unique rules applying to it

 the_scotsman wrote:
People typically dont go into a 40k campaign looking to simulate a real prolonged military engagement. When people want a campaign, what they want is to have their units "level up" most of the time.

The most successful crusade system I've ever run basically only impacted the map (as in, the terrain on the battlefield and its effects) and the mission being played. Everyone got to pick a couple special central character traits for their 'protagonist character' at the beginning of the campaign, and that character got those traits when they were included in a list. That was it.

I had designated terrain sets and mats for each region, and if players were fighting over that region, they played on that terrain set, and every terrain set had unique rules applying to it

You know, it may be the case that "people" typically want units to level up, but honest to god the whole time I've played 40k I've always thought a campaign should be like the Talos campaign or the Anphelion project or the Gaunts Ghosts books (basically, the general narrative of the setting. Vraks, Cadia, etc). - all of which tend to be "real(ish, for the setting), prolonged military engagements" and units don't typically level up. The protagonist might get a cool new sword like Gaunt, several battles into Necropolis, but in Crusade you can get a cool new sword after 1 battle straight out of training (unless that sword is a default power sword rather than an upgrade to an existing sword you already own, then you have to spend 1 RP on it).

That campaign you ran sounds awesome though, and right in the vein of fun narrative play!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
People typically dont go into a 40k campaign looking to simulate a real prolonged military engagement. When people want a campaign, what they want is to have their units "level up" most of the time.

The most successful crusade system I've ever run basically only impacted the map (as in, the terrain on the battlefield and its effects) and the mission being played. Everyone got to pick a couple special central character traits for their 'protagonist character' at the beginning of the campaign, and that character got those traits when they were included in a list. That was it.

I had designated terrain sets and mats for each region, and if players were fighting over that region, they played on that terrain set, and every terrain set had unique rules applying to it

You know, it may be the case that "people" typically want units to level up, but honest to god the whole time I've played 40k I've always thought a campaign should be like the Talos campaign or the Anphelion project or the Gaunts Ghosts books (basically, the general narrative of the setting. Vraks, Cadia, etc). - all of which tend to be "real(ish, for the setting), prolonged military engagements" and units don't typically level up. The protagonist might get a cool new sword like Gaunt, several battles into Necropolis, but in Crusade you can get a cool new sword after 1 battle straight out of training (unless that sword is a default power sword rather than an upgrade to an existing sword you already own, then you have to spend 1 RP on it).

That campaign you ran sounds awesome though, and right in the vein of fun narrative play!

Yeah, it was a response to the previous couple campaigns we tried, which were in order

1) a map campaign and a 'level up' campaign where people lost interest because a couple people won 3-4 games in a row and got unstoppably powerful and also the map structure meant peoples opponent pools were limited to 2-3 people each week so there were multiple games with the same army against the same opposing army over the same territory.

2) a free-flowing campaign with no map but with a 'level up' system where people lost interest because the same thing happened with unstoppable players using campaign bonuses to create unstoppable units

3) a map campaign with very limited 'leveling up' where people got frustrated because they kept having to play against the same opponents.

Ironically, when i did get complaints about the campaign, it was that the map felt like it 'didnt matter' because a baseline assumption of the campaign was that the various races in 40k have teleporters and planes and spaceships and can basically get where they need to go on the map when they want to...and that people wanted their units to 'level up' over the course of the campaign.

BUT, it did run to completion instead of petering out in 4 weeks!

Ladder campaigns are good in the sense that the campaign either has a winner or loser, and there can be a bit of back-and-forth. Hard to implement with more than two people though...

 Nurglitch wrote:
Ladder campaigns are good in the sense that the campaign either has a winner or loser, and there can be a bit of back-and-forth. Hard to implement with more than two people though...

Oh, i wasnt even talking about ladder campaigns, I love those.

The personal favorite one I ever made was after playing the original Dawn of War, noticing the hilariously bonkers plot whereby every single race in 40k somehow for some reason always ended up showing up and fething the ever-loving gak out of some poor innocent planet with an interstellar space macguffin on it and wanting to make a ladder campaign based on that.

It was set on the planet of Icaria, an imperial world with the vital STC template that allowed for angling imperial weaponry up at a 45 degree angle, where status among the citizenry was measured by how large of an anti-aircraft gun you can afford to mount atop your private residence.

It started with an Ork invasion, where the 'pro destruction of Icaria' forces were trying to sabotage some of the many, many, many anti-aircraft guns dotting the planet ahead of the arrival of the Roks, and then basically any time the 'pro defense of icaria' team won, more and more different enemy races would show up (chaos shows up, then the necrons show up, then with the necrons destroyed the tyranid hive fleet that had previously ignored the planet turns around and shows up), and the more the 'pro destruction of icaria' team won, the imperium would deploy more escalating and ridiculous levels of resources to protect the planet. "Sir, the guard failed" "SEND IN THE SPACE MARINES" "sir the space marines failed" "SEND IN THE ADEPTUS CUSTODES AND THE KNIGHTS!" "sir, they failed too" "SEND IN THE INQUISITION AND THE SISTERS OF BATTLE WITH A GIANT PLANET EXPLODING BOMB!!!!!"

There were I think 6 available outcomes depending on the sequence of win/lose for each side. Planet saved by imperials, planet exterminatus'd by the imperium, planet annexed by the Tau, planet destroyed by the Eldar to prevent the tomb world awakening, planet reconquered by the necrons, planet turned into a daemon world by chaos. The Tau ended up annexing the world as I recall.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I mean, sure, Crusade is probably more fun if you have Crusade content, but if my options are "buy a different army" or "wait months or years for GW's random dartboard of balance to pick up minis you like as things that are allowed to be playable" in the casual-narrative-fun-mode I'm going to take a third option and go play a different game.

That's not the fault of the Crusade system though, nor is it in any way indicative of its quality.

It is, however, the fault of the people telling me "If you don't like tournament 40k you should try Crusade, all the stuff you own that's crap in tournament games is fine in Crusade!", because it really isn't.

Crusade is not the panacea for matched play problems, it magnifies them.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Crusade is not the panacea for matched play problems, it magnifies them.

Who ever said it was?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Crusade is not the panacea for matched play problems, it magnifies them.

Who ever said it was?

In a comment I made earlier in the thread, I implied that Crusade can solve ONE particular matched play problem: when you have a favourite model that is so weak that it's a competitive liability, you can play it in Crusade, knowing that after you stack a requisition strat or two, four battle honours and a WL trait and Relic on it (if it's a character), you can make it play like the model you wanted.

I never claimed it could solve ALL of the matched problems- just that one. And I even threw in the caveat that TFG isn't going to do that anyway- they're just going to take the most broken units they can and use Crusade to make them broken-er. Obviously a TFG problem more than a Crusade problem, but definitely a valid fear either way.

If you don't believe Crusade can make a weak unit cooler, I'll introduce you to Poppa Jokaero some day... Because SPACE MONKEYS!

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

One of the things that this type of progression system allows you to achieve improvements to units which, on their own may not be competitive. So you'll hear matched players all the time talk about "throw away" or "garbage" units. Yet one of those models might be your favourite thing in your faction

Finally a chance for my Fire Dragons and Lootas to shine!

Well, my lootas are doing fine in my crusade force. A unit of 9 lead by a clever spanna is something that does decently and can be fit in small games. And whenever they level up, you can pick a weapon upgrade for the spanner to portrait him tinkering with his gun.

I'm a bit confused on the bringing people back part. Sounds like if a unit gets filled up with injuries you can just retire them then bring the exact same unit back? Hmm, not sure how I feel about that one. On one hand it's great if you've got a limited hobby budget. On the other hand I was hoping Crusade play would reward playstyles that don't involve kamikaze rushes like you see in matched play. Like you wouldn't want to go for a 'trade' and sacrifice a unit if you knew there was no replenishment coming.

If you retire them, you also lose all the experience and rewards they have gained. You can spend requisitions if you want to heal an injury that is crippling your unit, but I have found that most of the time you just leave them on.
As for the "no kamikaze rushes"... some armies just do that by design, plus you often don't really have a say in that. Even in small games, usually over half of both armies get wiped out each game. If any casualties remained dead, no one would ever gain any experience more than once and your average joe unit usually only "levels up" every four or five games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Ladder campaigns are good in the sense that the campaign either has a winner or loser, and there can be a bit of back-and-forth. Hard to implement with more than two people though...

Oh, i wasnt even talking about ladder campaigns, I love those.

The personal favorite one I ever made was after playing the original Dawn of War, noticing the hilariously bonkers plot whereby every single race in 40k somehow for some reason always ended up showing up and fething the ever-loving gak out of some poor innocent planet with an interstellar space macguffin on it and wanting to make a ladder campaign based on that.

I'm currently playing the Obolis Invasion campaign from the book of rust, maybe give that a shot. It me it seems like you and your group would really enjoy that.

Glad to hear Lootas have a place in Crusade. I haven't used Spanners in some time because of that 30pt price tag. I had missed the Klever Spanner from Psychic Awakening, that does make it pretty tempting.

For the unit death and replacement I wasn't thinking perma-death. I'll have to read up more on Crusade's army growth but I was thinking it would go something like this: Unit costs 150pts or PL equivalent, you can only gain +100pts between games so if you sacrifice that unit in a Kamikaze rush in game 1 you won't be able to replace it until game 3.

Like you said though that might be overly punishing and make it hard for anyone to level up if there's few replacements on the enemy side.