Switch Theme:

Crusade experience wanted!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
#3: I highly recommend not rolling for honors. It's drastically un-fun for basically everyone involved, and there's no good reason to do so over picking. Everybody will be happier if you pick, and there's literally no downside.
Is this because rolling randomly might see a HTH squad get a shooting buff, or vice versa?


Yes, also, particularly in narrative play, people want to you know, have the narrative of their people, so picking is important.

This is why my approach is a hybrid. Got a narrative reason, even if it's not very deep, to get a specific Honour? Go for it. Your squad that made that last-turn dash to steal an objective deserves Fleet of Foot; your unit that survived with one model left deserves Grizzled; your Dreadnought that wrecked enemy vehicles all over the place deserves Armourbane.

I don't even care how flimsy your narrative reasoning is - the point is to get the players thinking about why things are happening.

Also, I can think of one good reason to roll: it reduces analysis paralysis. In my group, few of the players are dedicated enough to sit there pouring over Crusade rules between gaming days to figure out what they want for that important unit when it levels up. It's much easier to roll and apply an ability, and it gets things moving so they can play another game.

One other suggestion is to let players roll again if the ability they roll is redundant/useless (or even close to it). It would be literally pointless for a unit to get Grizzled if it already has a shrug save, for example.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




ccs wrote:
Bleh. I completely disagree with simply picking your rewards.
You want to see units quickly become monsters? Then pick your rewards.


The idea with the crusade rules is that they support narrative play. I hesitate to say that if you're just picking all the min-max options you're doing it wrong, because it's your game so play it how you want, but we know it's not what the designers intended.

I'll be discussing the options with our group tonight and I'll be recommending we go with Cheex's approach. It strikes a good balance. I think we can all trust eachother not to make it boring and listen to feedback if we think somebody's picks are BS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/06 09:50:02


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Racerguy180 wrote:
Roll for it, picking is for matched play...

If you want to pimp out your units, expose them to danger....



I'd argue the other way around. If you want to play a competitive crusade (yuk.) you should roll to not have everyone immediately become super-heroes. In a narrative driven crusade, picking things that match the narrative is much more fun.

A cool idea from one of my peers was having the person who inflicted the wound pick what it does.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/06 10:23:10


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah, rolling isn't "narrative".

Daemonettes getting +1 ballistic skill as a unit upgrade isn't narrative at all.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

i think you can make arguments for and against rolling/picking upgrades. My shop has been rolling, but that was simply a consensus choice. I think it really comes down to what you're more afraid of: getting a suboptimal or even worthless result on your own stuff, or somebody building an unstoppable monster with layered buffs.

If I were to make a call, I guess I would gauge the overall "savviness" of the people playing. I could see newer players preferring randomness, while experienced players enjoy picking.

I think Power level is probably the same way, although I think that players overstate the downsides to Power Level. Yes, it does encourage you to run your units fat with upgrades,, because they're all "free." So if you have a lot of units optimized for efficient builds (LRBTs with only a hull heavy bolter, the Dakka Fex, etc.) then yeah, i guess Power Level does suck a bit. I think that it allows people that have built their stuff however, or with big collections, to use units that would never see the light of day due to their inefficient load outs.

Power level is also vastly easier for building lists, which is an upside when you roll into Crusade night, and end up play a 65 PL (roughly 1300 point) game. Building that list on the fly with PL is a breeze, while with Points it can take a while.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yep- definitely a picker.

I always make my picks on story. This is easy enough to ensure if you've got a GM/ Moderator, but it could get a little awkward without one if your player base isn't on the same page.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Whether you want to pick your traits to tell the story of your unit, or pick your traits because it's efficient, you are having more fun than randomly rolling. You don't even need to be on the same page, because it's more fun either way.

Ordering people to roll in order to spite the people who might enjoy having a strong combination of abilities is really coming from the wrong place in the heart; the intent is to have fun, not to spite competitive-type play. It's like shooting yourself in the foot to show your opponent how little you care about the race, because you're really degrading the enjoyment of everybody in your league so that people who either aren't in your league or are playing along and having fun with everybody else know how much you spit on them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/06 17:49:11


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in fi
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine






While we're on the subject of Crusade, can I ask your opinions on a houserule we're contemplating on bolting onto our Crusade when we finally get to start one later this year?

We were thinking that in addition to starting with 50PL, there is also a PL cap for units we can add to our OOB's. This cap starts at 6PL; we cannot include any units which cost more than 6PL unless its a Troop category unit. Then, we can spend RPs to permanently increase the max unit PL throughout the entire Crusade (1RP per PL cap increase by 1). Doing this will prevent players from starting the Crusade with overly skewed/powerful units or HQs, and this will add further challenge to managing RPs.

What do you think?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/06 19:18:00


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

 tauist wrote:
While we're on the subject of Crusade, can I ask your opinions on a houserule we're contemplating on bolting onto our Crusade when we finally get to start one later this year?

We weve thinking that in addition to starting with 50PL, there is also a PL cap for units we can add to our OOB's. This cap starts at 6PL; we cannot include any units which cost more than 6PL unless its a Troop category unit. Then, we can spend RPs to permanently increase the max unit PL throughout the entire Crusade (1RP per PL cap increase by 1). Doing this will prevent players from starting the Crusade with overly skewed/powerful units or HQs, and this will add further challenge to managing RPs.


With the caveat that if it works for your group, go for it: it's fiddly and solves a problem that doesn't exist. A single Dreadnought isn't going to break the game, even at combat patrol, and that's 7 PL! You'll just end up rewarding MSU army builds or armies with strong troops choices.


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Roll rewards, with the option to spend one requisition to change the result to one of choice.
   
Made in fi
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine






 Polonius wrote:
 tauist wrote:
While we're on the subject of Crusade, can I ask your opinions on a houserule we're contemplating on bolting onto our Crusade when we finally get to start one later this year?

We weve thinking that in addition to starting with 50PL, there is also a PL cap for units we can add to our OOB's. This cap starts at 6PL; we cannot include any units which cost more than 6PL unless its a Troop category unit. Then, we can spend RPs to permanently increase the max unit PL throughout the entire Crusade (1RP per PL cap increase by 1). Doing this will prevent players from starting the Crusade with overly skewed/powerful units or HQs, and this will add further challenge to managing RPs.


With the caveat that if it works for your group, go for it: it's fiddly and solves a problem that doesn't exist. A single Dreadnought isn't going to break the game, even at combat patrol, and that's 7 PL! You'll just end up rewarding MSU army builds or armies with strong troops choices.


Everyone gets 5RP at the start of the Crusade IIRC.. This means that every player can level up to include max 13PL units before even the first battle is fought if they really want to. I dont really see it as fiddly as you make it out to be.

The main incentive for adding PL levelups was to give some other uses for RPs at the start of the Crusade, since you cant hold more than 5 at any time. I also think its an interesting way to making things escalate more as the Crusade develops.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/05/06 20:41:12


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

 tauist wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
 tauist wrote:
While we're on the subject of Crusade, can I ask your opinions on a houserule we're contemplating on bolting onto our Crusade when we finally get to start one later this year?

We weve thinking that in addition to starting with 50PL, there is also a PL cap for units we can add to our OOB's. This cap starts at 6PL; we cannot include any units which cost more than 6PL unless its a Troop category unit. Then, we can spend RPs to permanently increase the max unit PL throughout the entire Crusade (1RP per PL cap increase by 1). Doing this will prevent players from starting the Crusade with overly skewed/powerful units or HQs, and this will add further challenge to managing RPs.


With the caveat that if it works for your group, go for it: it's fiddly and solves a problem that doesn't exist. A single Dreadnought isn't going to break the game, even at combat patrol, and that's 7 PL! You'll just end up rewarding MSU army builds or armies with strong troops choices.


Everyone gets 5RP at the start of the Crusade IIRC.. This means that every player can level up to include max 13PL units before even the first battle is fought if they really want to. I dont really see it as fiddly as you make it out to be.

The main incentive for adding PL levelups was to give some other uses for RPs at the start of the Crusade, since you cant hold more than 5 at any time. I also think its an interesting way to making things escalate more as the Crusade develops.


As I said, if your group really wants to encourage MSU at all cost, knock your socks off. Run with it.

But the more I think about it, the worse of an idea it is. Yes, you start with 5RPs, and most people use them on A warlord trait and relic, and then to bump up the requisition limit. I never struggled to spent RPs: you can buy warlord traits and relics for all characters, many armies have strategem upgrades that become RP things, and you always end up spending RPs to heal battle scars. Oh, and you need 10 RPs to be able to play full sized games. Having to spend 4 RPs to field Leman russes, or 9 RPs to field the Riptide, is a massive feel bad. Sure, Space marines love it, since they have a ton of great units at 6PL or under. Dark Eldar too, i'd imagine.

there's an old truism that really works against nearly effort to balance the game with a simple rule: no matter who cleverly you define your rules for preventing abuse, the stronger armies will continue to be good due to a deeper pool of options, while weaker armies will lose some of the few strong options they have.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/06 21:00:01


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in fi
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine






 Polonius wrote:
 tauist wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
 tauist wrote:
While we're on the subject of Crusade, can I ask your opinions on a houserule we're contemplating on bolting onto our Crusade when we finally get to start one later this year?

We weve thinking that in addition to starting with 50PL, there is also a PL cap for units we can add to our OOB's. This cap starts at 6PL; we cannot include any units which cost more than 6PL unless its a Troop category unit. Then, we can spend RPs to permanently increase the max unit PL throughout the entire Crusade (1RP per PL cap increase by 1). Doing this will prevent players from starting the Crusade with overly skewed/powerful units or HQs, and this will add further challenge to managing RPs.


With the caveat that if it works for your group, go for it: it's fiddly and solves a problem that doesn't exist. A single Dreadnought isn't going to break the game, even at combat patrol, and that's 7 PL! You'll just end up rewarding MSU army builds or armies with strong troops choices.


Everyone gets 5RP at the start of the Crusade IIRC.. This means that every player can level up to include max 13PL units before even the first battle is fought if they really want to. I dont really see it as fiddly as you make it out to be.

The main incentive for adding PL levelups was to give some other uses for RPs at the start of the Crusade, since you cant hold more than 5 at any time. I also think its an interesting way to making things escalate more as the Crusade develops.


As I said, if your group really wants to encourage MSU at all cost, knock your socks off. Run with it.

But the more I think about it, the worse of an idea it is. Yes, you start with 5RPs, and most people use them on A warlord trait and relic, and then to bump up the requisition limit. I never struggled to spent RPs: you can buy warlord traits and relics for all characters, many armies have strategem upgrades that become RP things, and you always end up spending RPs to heal battle scars. Oh, and you need 10 RPs to be able to play full sized games. Having to spend 4 RPs to field Leman russes, or 9 RPs to field the Riptide, is a massive feel bad. Sure, Space marines love it, since they have a ton of great units at 6PL or under. Dark Eldar too, i'd imagine.

there's an old truism that really works against nearly effort to balance the game with a simple rule: no matter who cleverly you define your rules for preventing abuse, the stronger armies will continue to be good due to a deeper pool of options, while weaker armies will lose some of the few strong options they have.


That's just it. I hate the idea that RPs are just for taking Relics and Warlord traits. That will just result in superherohammer to the max real fast. And needing 10RP to be able to play full sized games? What is a "full sized game" in Crusade? Sounds to me like you're still trying to shoehorn "2000pts matched play" paradigms into a Crusade game, whereas I feel like that's precisely the sort of gaming I am trying to take a break from with our Crusade games.
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





If you're just after things for people to spend their RPs on, then I don't think placing artificial limits and then making people spend expend a prescious resource to get back to normal is the way to do it.

A more interesting use of RPs would be to affect things like battle setup - e.g. spending RPs to influence who is attacker/defender or spending RPs to influence who chooses the mission being played. This would represent the commander using scouts to recon the battlefield or expending resources to outmanouver the enemy.

If you're just looking to curb powerful units in smaller games, then maybe a "soft limit" is better - e.g. units worth more than 15% of the agreed battle size limit are worth an extra Crusade Point for that battle.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







My group trades RPs to buy alliances (and treacheries) in team games!
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My group trades RPs to buy alliances (and treacheries) in team games!

Oh, I like that...
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





On the subject of needing to spend RP to unlock higher PL units, I definitely don't think that's a good idea, as has been observed, you're just locking off huge tracts of people's codecies at an unequal rate, and most likely just telling people that they can't play with their toys, which is pretty much the opposite idea of having a crusade league.


As for the characters getting warlord traits and relics, it's going to happen, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Like, it's narrative, you're supposed to be telling the story of your people, why not have them have character traits? Also, like a warlord trait and relic are the least of your concerns for superhero hammer, given that it took like 6 games for my GMNDK to reach Legendary.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/07 00:53:40


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah. Agreed with Katherine. If you are deliberate about how you XP a character you can pump them to the heavens quickly, especially if they start from an already quite powerful base model.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Crusade has 2 major ways of play and one is alot more involved than the other.

Open Crusade: This is actually the BRB intended way to play and is very casual. You just make a crusade roster and play games against other Crusade rosters. No rules, or prizes or fancy comp. Just forge the narrative on each table with each opponent.

Theres no incentive to go super cheezy unless you just want to be super cheezy. Just make cool stories for your guys.

League Crusade: These are much more involved and should take place with a group of friends or at least acquaintances who already know each other or at least of each other. You should all agree to a set of rules on how many games per week/month and what limits on battle honors and relics you take. You should preferably make a planetary map and try to do it ala Risk Style where you try to take over the map.



Leagues are fairly common, and were pretty balanced until the 9th codex's came out, granting certain armies more things to play with than others.



Personally, im of the belief that you should actually only take relics if they make sense. Example would be of my Dawneagle Shield captain in one crusade. I picked him to be survivor for a game and litterally thats what he was. The rest of my army got tabled and he lived with 4 wounds (more than half). He got his extra xp and ranked up, earning the Bionics relic to replace the arm that got blown off in the battle.

A second example will be in a different crusade roster I played the Relic mission and won. Instead of giving the free relic to my shield captain, I gave it to the Vexilla who was actually holding the relic at the end of the game and won it for me. I gave him frenzon injectors.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in fi
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine






 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
On the subject of needing to spend RP to unlock higher PL units, I definitely don't think that's a good idea, as has been observed, you're just locking off huge tracts of people's codecies at an unequal rate, and most likely just telling people that they can't play with their toys, which is pretty much the opposite idea of having a crusade league.


As for the characters getting warlord traits and relics, it's going to happen, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Like, it's narrative, you're supposed to be telling the story of your people, why not have them have character traits? Also, like a warlord trait and relic are the least of your concerns for superhero hammer, given that it took like 6 games for my GMNDK to reach Legendary.


It took 6 games to reach Legendary? I think it should take at least five times as many games for that. There's obviously a disconnect in how Crusade games actually escalate, and what I'd thought playing it would be like. Doesn't feel like an RPG-style experience at all in that case.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

One experience for being there, 3 for being Marked, 4 for Survivor, occasional one for kills. Call it 8.5 per game, that takes 6 games to reach 51 for Legendary.

That's not even really min-maxing. Of course, you can coordinate more agendas, like Linebreaker or Psychic-whatever. The maximum, I think, is to take a fresh, psychic character into a Strike Force game with 3 Agendas. You take Survivor for 4, Scry Battleplans for 5, and Recovery Mission for 6, for a total of 19 experience per game. That's Legenday on game 3, and you only need to succeed Recovery Mission twice.

More practically? I think 6-8 is a good amount for a targeted unit to gain in a game. Agendas that affect multiple units tend to award 2 or 3. My units (mostly the tanks) were getting ~8 exp for one and 3-4 exp on a couple others per game. After 5 or 6 games I had most vehicles and characters Battle-honored, and most of my other units had hit Blooded incidentally.

The trouble is, many agendas (and particularly the most rewarding ones) target one unit. If you want a unit to have experience, then you choose those secondaries and you probably also want to Mark them. So naturally your key units grow pretty quickly, especially if you're playing Incursion levels.

In my experience, most factions would rather have three Battle-Honored units than one Legendary. It all depends.

Anyway, I suggest you get some practical experience under your belt before proposing house rules.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/07 04:26:09


   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 tauist wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
On the subject of needing to spend RP to unlock higher PL units, I definitely don't think that's a good idea, as has been observed, you're just locking off huge tracts of people's codecies at an unequal rate, and most likely just telling people that they can't play with their toys, which is pretty much the opposite idea of having a crusade league.


As for the characters getting warlord traits and relics, it's going to happen, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Like, it's narrative, you're supposed to be telling the story of your people, why not have them have character traits? Also, like a warlord trait and relic are the least of your concerns for superhero hammer, given that it took like 6 games for my GMNDK to reach Legendary.


It took 6 games to reach Legendary? I think it should take at least five times as many games for that. There's obviously a disconnect in how Crusade games actually escalate, and what I'd thought playing it would be like. Doesn't feel like an RPG-style experience at all in that case.


Is that your experience, or what you think should be?

It's fairly easy to net 13+XP per game to a Psyker Character, though Scry Battle Plans [5] and Survivor [4]. Add in 1 for participating and 3 for marked for greatness, and that's almost a rank per game played.

I'm going to second DarkHound and suggest that you play some crusade to feel for how it actually handles as written before changing the base rules. I'm not sure what you mean by not like an RPG-experience. It's not an RPG; Dark Heresy or Black Crusade might be your bet for the former experience.

If I were to work on some houserules for a Crusade league, I would probably be to write up some custom missions and most importantly, to change up the victory rewards, because at least in our league, we reached a point around 10 games in where we were playing games where nobody could use the game rewards.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/07 19:46:11


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




In my limited experience, Crusade requires all players involved to agree not to cheese their rosters in such a way. No one should be picking the same unit for secondary rewards and marked for greatness every game, that's just breaking the system because you can.
Likewise, building competitive level lists should also be avoided. Instead, build your army to be more like a narrative appropriate army, for example, marines could work towards having a battle demi company.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

Zustiur wrote:
In my limited experience, Crusade requires all players involved to agree not to cheese their rosters in such a way. No one should be picking the same unit for secondary rewards and marked for greatness every game, that's just breaking the system because you can.
Likewise, building competitive level lists should also be avoided. Instead, build your army to be more like a narrative appropriate army, for example, marines could work towards having a battle demi company.


Oh you can make some quite powerful lists built narratively.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Much of this goes into my "Crusade isn't narrative. It's just a progression system." argument...
   
Made in fi
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Much of this goes into my "Crusade isn't narrative. It's just a progression system." argument...


I think I'm starting to feel the same. The idea that supersoldiers of the future become legendary fighters after a few battles in some insignificant campaign doesn't sound very plausible to me, narratively speaking. We're talking about soldiers who have supposedly fought wars for decades, if not for hundreds or years.. By that logic, they'd all have maxed out and becme legendary heroes of the chapter during their first Campaign FFS

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 14:04:00


 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Much of this goes into my "Crusade isn't narrative. It's just a progression system." argument...
Crusade is a progression system in the same way that DnD is a co-op fighting game. Both games provide opportunities for players to invest themselves, but it's necessarily down to the players to take that step. DnD may be the archetypal narrative game, but even so backgrounds and story elements can be weaponized while their flavour ignored; that's how murder-hobos are born. Lots of players don't make the extra effort on themselves to create a narrative, and words on a paper can't force them to act in good faith.

Plus it depends on the context of your games. If you're playing one-off pick-up games, obviously there's more work on your end to create a connective narrative. But at a minimum it's still a chronicle of a fighting force's experience. If you're playing in a league, especially with campaign attached, it's easier. I'm sure we'll get more campaign books to run too.
 tauist wrote:
I think I'm starting to feel the same. The idea that supersoldiers of the future become legendary fighters after a few battles in some insignificant campaign doesn't sound very plausible to me, narratively speaking. We're talking about soldiers who have supposedly fought wars for decades, if not for hundreds or years.. By that logic, they'd all have maxed out and becme legendary heroes of the chapter during their first Campaign FFS
I think the characterization "soldiers who fought wars for decades" is misleading. Plenty of fresh Marines die and never progress, and have to be replaced with more freshly minted Marines. It's like the Traitor Legions: the typical troopers are not the ones who fought on Terra during the Heresy, despite the claim of 10,000 of battle. Those guys are all Chaos Lords and Daemon Princes or dead (or worse).

The battles we play are symmetrical, pitched battles and insanely lethal. By the fact that you're playing it, it's not an insignificant campaign. It's kind of campaign that creates the veterans who get promoted to lead and teach. You'd never argue an Intercessor from a "legendary" squad is as powerful as a Captain, they're just ready to become a more elite unit or else be broken into sergeants or lieutenants. Hell, you could argue there's a flow and reallocation of soldiers within the company between missions. Fresh recruits replace losses in the veteran squad and are brought to par, but also parts of that squad are promoted to replace losses in your elite units as well. You can rationalize the rules lots of ways for narrative flavour.
Zustiur wrote:
In my limited experience, Crusade requires all players involved to agree not to cheese their rosters in such a way. No one should be picking the same unit for secondary rewards and marked for greatness every game, that's just breaking the system because you can.
Likewise, building competitive level lists should also be avoided. Instead, build your army to be more like a narrative appropriate army, for example, marines could work towards having a battle demi company.
I am fundamentally opposed to enforcing rules on how other people should have fun. Not everyone is going to agree on what is cheese and what is narrative appropriate. My army has pages of backstory (I'm a professional writer by trade) and that informs my unit choices, but I'm still going to build good armies and properly equip them because that's fun too. Of course, this is a casual game mode so being courteous means you make concessions to improve the other person's fun. You help the disadvantaged player have more fun, you don't clamp down on someone having fun.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 14:58:41


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







A real narrative ruleset would not require "rationalization" of the rules to make narrative sense.

Promoting units to officers would actually be a narrative consequence (e.g. a Legendary sergeant using Lieutenant rules or becoming a Lieutenant outright) but that doesn't work within the rules. Remember limit 3!
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Then what you're chaffing against is the granularity of the rules. There's nothing stopping you from adding a lieutenant to your army and saying he's the former sergeant. Hell, you can even write it down in their data-sheet. Still, you can't create rules for every possible outcome, and trying to systematize everything runs into rules bloat.

Using DnD as an example again, I think 5e being rules-lite on the narrative side is a good thing. It provides more room for the players to create their own stories.

At the end of the day, it's still a game and has to function well. You could nit-pick any rule they create as not providing ample narrative until the game becomes a 1:1 simulation. Ultimately it's up to the player to create narrative within an abstracted system.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 15:29:25


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







There is a difference between abstraction (what makes wargames playable) and rationalization.

In places where the rules don't cover things it is easy. In places where the rules outright contradict the narrative, not so much. You have to rationalize the rules away.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: