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.

Reading through the Crusade Battle Honor rewards, I think that most of it is well balanced. The upgrades are pretty diverse, such that most infantry and vehicles will get their most impactful ones after two Battle Honors without breaking the game. The trouble is that Characters have a wider pool of both Battle Honor upgrades and access to Relic and Warlord traits to stack a similar effect. It's hard to stack the same effect from just Battle Honors, but sometimes that one extra effect is enough to break the camel's back.

The one that jumped out to me immediately was Master-crafted Armour on an Imperial Knight with the Armour of Sainted Ion. The Crusade Relic entry explicitly points out a 2+ becomes a 1+, which means it can only fail its save on a natural one regardless of armour penetration. Welcome back 2++ Castellan, Command Points need not apply.

There's a lot of ways to increase a Character's charge distance, number of attacks, and strength. Any melee character can get +3 or 4" out of the movement traits, and push 30+" average charge threat range. You only need 33" (or less if the target's footprint is larger than 25mm) to charge clear to the opponent's table edge. That extra 4" makes a world of difference when considering deployment options.

Of course, you should discuss the game with your opponent before you play. However, the upgrades are permanent, rules as written, so what happens if you decide you don't want to deal that 2++ Knight? Do you let them switch it with another Battle Honor for the game, or ask them to remove the Battle Honor entirely? Moreover, where do you think you'll draw the line for units you don't want to play against?

And, for my own morbid curiosity, what are the most disgusting combinations you've found?

There are definitely particular combinations that are absurd. Knights (and other mega units) are going to be the prime (but in fairness not the only) offenders in that regard. If someone shows up with a 2++ Knight for Crusade, they're not getting a game at my LGS.

They also aren't playing in the spirit of narrative for fun campaign play if they are doing that.

Sure, a 2++ Knight is probably the most extreme case. But plenty of cases are just one upgrade from nutty.

A Khornite Chaos Lord playing a fluffy list with no Sorcerer will want to stack +1" advance and charge Warlord trait with relic that lets them charge after advancing. Using a Jump Pack, that gives it a charge range of ~27" (with the charge re-roll). He can charge just to other side of no-man's land on turn 1, which is okay. Do you draw the line if they take the Battle Trait for more movement and can charge 30"?

An Ork Warboss can do pretty much the same thing. Is it cheesy if the Speed Freak Warboss takes every movement speed increase if that's also the best gameplay choice?

How much should you consider 'this would be too strong if I took it'?

Now I feel bad. I excitedly told my Chaos Knight playing friend about the possibility of getting a 2++ knight before realizing that only applies to Imperials.
He loses most of his games so I thought it would give him an edge. He's very bummed that his knights are constantly brought down by things like Aggressor's boltstorm gauntlets and little frag grenades :(

Rihgu wrote:
Now I feel bad. I excitedly told my Chaos Knight playing friend about the possibility of getting a 2++ knight before realizing that only applies to Imperials.
He loses most of his games so I thought it would give him an edge. He's very bummed that his knights are constantly brought down by things like Aggressor's boltstorm gauntlets and little frag grenades :(

Marine firepower overkilling things isnt exactly a Knight specific problem.

 DarkHound wrote:

How much should you consider 'this would be too strong if I took it'?

There's no single answer to this, but my general rule of thumb is "if it shuts down or otherwise invalidates an opponent's force simply by existing, its too much".

 DarkHound wrote:
Sure, a 2++ Knight is probably the most extreme case.

I am extremely doubtful that the 2++ will survive FAQs. I won't debate it though, because we'll be here forever. Better to just wait on that one.

Crusade games aren't meant to be balanced, thats why it uses power levels and allows for all sorts of shenanigans. You should be playing to a narrative story/rule of fluffy cool, not trying to build the most lopsided advantage you can think of.

This. I think this is mostly a tournament play/rules lawyer mentality trying to look at narrative fluffy bunny fun rules and then losing their minds at how "OP" things will get and how stupid it is because everyone is going to take it because 100% all players in existence don't take anything but the most optimal OP options.

I don't personally know a single narrative player that any of this stuff would be an issue for as for them, the fl huff is what matters, not how strong the rules are.
At end of the day, crusade/narrative is made for a different breed of player.

 auticus wrote:
They also aren't playing in the spirit of narrative for fun campaign play if they are doing that.

its almost like the CAAC is a lie and Crusade is just a page filler thats a tacked on afterthought

Daedalus81 wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Sure, a 2++ Knight is probably the most extreme case.

I am extremely doubtful that the 2++ will survive FAQs. I won't debate it though, because we'll be here forever. Better to just wait on that one.

I agree, I dislike it as intuitive rules writing, and I hope it gets changed.

chaos0xomega wrote:Crusade games aren't meant to be balanced, thats why it uses power levels and allows for all sorts of shenanigans. You should be playing to a narrative story/rule of fluffy cool, not trying to build the most lopsided advantage you can think of.

I think that's a good point to remember that both sides will have crazy units. My initial point was that even strictly fluffy upgrades can end up with unprecedented power (which is probably a point in the system's favour). At the end of the day, it's still a wargame and not an RPG: you're playing to win.

Don't forget that Crusade can also give penalties to your units from what was being said early on, that you have to use Requisition Points to clear off.

I'll repeat what I said in the other Crusade thread:

Crusade isn't a competitive game. It's not designed in that way. It's Necromunda, but for 40K. You don't play Necromunda competitively, as such a thing doesn't work once you start adding advances, experience, new fighters, injuries and so on.

The same applies here, so the people worrying about things being "out of control" or the "choices" everyone [or "cheesy" in the case of this new thread] will be making can probably ease off the gas a bit. This is not as big an issue as some are making it out to be.

As much as 9th is 40K "Tournament Edition", there isn't going to be a "tournament meta" for Crusade, as it's not a competitive game.

How to make a ridiculous upgrade:

3 Damage Autocannons...

On Tauroxes...

Now shoot at some Primaris squads...

Rihgu wrote:
Now I feel bad. I excitedly told my Chaos Knight playing friend about the possibility of getting a 2++ knight before realizing that only applies to Imperials.

I mean, if you just let them do it then the Scions are not going to grav-chute into your room and shoot you. Although I have not read the crusade rules yet, the nature of narrative is inherently flexible. Maybe they stole the armour thing, or are a recently traitor unit?

Edit: Oh, it's that "natural 1+" nonsense. I was thinking some wargear like a shadowfield. Yeah, I will just lodge my objection at how this "1+ immune to ap" thing works and move on.

Im not seeing how the Castellan is getting a 2++. The Master Crafted Armour gives +1 to the save characteristic, not saving throws, so it would still have its base invuln, or the better invuln with the relic. Unless I'm missing something

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
Im not seeing how the Castellan is getting a 2++. The Master Crafted Armour gives +1 to the save characteristic, not saving throws, so it would still have its base invuln, or the better invuln with the relic. Unless I'm missing something

1+ save characteristics are (pending an FAQ) functionally equivalent to a 2++.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slayer6 wrote:
How to make a ridiculous upgrade:

3 Damage Autocannons...

On Tauroxes...

Now shoot at some Primaris squads...

If you want to spend 1/3d of your battle honors on a BS4+ model on making two separate weapons kill statistically the exact same number of Intercessors, by all means go for it.

I mean, it's fun to figure out what benefits most, and I've definitely been playing around with things for my T'au.

If/when I get a Crusade going, I suspect it'll be with a consistent opponent or two. The balance there will get worked on through a case-by-case basis, I'm sure.

If there's ever any issue, I'd rather just reroll whatever traits they had an issue with, and play them with that trait for that game. Easy enough. No legal teams are gonna come with a lawsuit over it, I'm sure.


Edit: As for exciting combos, I've mostly focused on what I play - T'au. Nothing I've seen there really approaches 1+ Knights (or 1+ Daemon Princes, perhaps - they can get a native 2+ save through relics, right?), but some fun stuff to play around with.

Well, at high levels, maybe one or two that get almost as ridiculous. An Iridium Commander can get a 1+ save and still have 4 Weapon Enhancement battlesuit weapons at high rank (I'm thinking Cyclic Ion Blaster, probably with +1 D). Combined with the 5++ vs Mortal Wounds warlord trait, and you have an 8" Fly move T5 6W 2++~ 5+++ with Savior Protocols and sub-10W character protections. Add the jets Prototype, and you're rerolling 1's to hit and wound natively, and the firepower is probably at or near Novaing Riptides in ferocity.

I also like the Coldstar Bomb for pure shenanigans, which makes an excellent delivery system for that Legendary Relic Vortex Grenade, even a slightly safer one if you have the custom +4" to assault & grenade weapons tenet. An average of 6 mortal wounds on one unit and roughly 1 more mortal wound per unit within 6" of the original target will be worth its smoking corpse afterwords, maybe. A Shield Generator and some good overwatch weapons seem worthwhile. Great for a character who learned a little TOO much about fighting Orks. Delightfully and devilishly combos with the Farsight Enclaves Signature System that's normally not worth a damn - the Seismic Whatchacallit.

Y'vahra, already fairly scary albeit glass cannon-y, can end up with a total range of 20" (assuming no changes to its current weapon type) or 18" (assuming it gets changed to Assault instead of Heavy) for its Phased Plasma Array, or at least get the Bor'kan's juicy 14" range and keep Sept Tenets/Stratagems. 2d6 or 3d6 autohitting 3 damage firepower at that range on a model that fast makes for an unignorable threat, while also allowing it to stay closer to back field support for protection.

A HBC Riptide with almost any upgrade can put out some pretty insane firepower. Iontides aren't too far behind, though I think the Prototype is better than any Enhancement available.

You can almost exactly replicate the Prototype Heavy Rail Rifle on Broadsides, who are neither monster nor vehicle, and can thus apply two boosts from the table to each weapon enhanced. It takes 2 enhancements to get both HYMPs, but even one enhancement isn't bad (+1 Str +1 D for a HYMP profile really ups its effectiveness against a lot of prime targets).

Similarly benefiting are XV-9s, which can get some seriously horrifying output out of those Twinlinked Burst Cannons - with a custom sept, you could get two 22" A8 S5 -2 D2 weapons per XV-9, which strikes me as absolutely brutal for melting medium and heavy infantry. In fact, it's a shade below a Nova-ing HBC (2 fewer attacks, -1 S). Yeesh.

Ion Ghostkeels also benefit fairly well, I'd say. +1 damage makes their overcharge hit hard, and I suspect they'll be perfect for the new 3w Primaris stuff. Fusion Ghostkeels aren't bad off either -

Master-crafted Armour should be fine - just play characters as having permadeath or a 0-1 per month stipulation.

Its not like Crusade is actually a competitive game

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I mean, it's fun to figure out what benefits most, and I've definitely been playing around with things for my T'au.

If/when I get a Crusade going, I suspect it'll be with a consistent opponent or two. The balance there will get worked on through a case-by-case basis, I'm sure.

If there's ever any issue, I'd rather just reroll whatever traits they had an issue with, and play them with that trait for that game. Easy enough. No legal teams are gonna come with a lawsuit over it, I'm sure.

I think it's interesting take upgrades to counter-act your regular opponents, as your units specialize over a campaign. It's a good reason to include duplicate units on your Order of Battle with different upgrade paths. You know, you've got the specialists Guardsmen with +1 damage for fighting Space Marines, or the +6" range to fight Tau.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll repeat what I said in the other Crusade thread:

Crusade isn't a competitive game. It's not designed in that way. It's Necromunda, but for 40K. You don't play Necromunda competitively, as such a thing doesn't work once you start adding advances, experience, new fighters, injuries and so on.

The same applies here, so the people worrying about things being "out of control" or the "choices" everyone [or "cheesy" in the case of this new thread] will be making can probably ease off the gas a bit. This is not as big an issue as some are making it out to be.

As much as 9th is 40K "Tournament Edition", there isn't going to be a "tournament meta" for Crusade, as it's not a competitive game.

At a point, even Narrative and Casual Play should not have to deal with Issues from design. It can even effect it more, when a player chooses or gets a random upgrade that can break the games or even a whole campagn.
It should be designed with just as much thought and effort as all parts of the game.
As the potentul for feel bad moments in casual play can be really high, a lot of players dont really enjoy just being left to hoping dice get though a OP units defenses why the other player gets to play the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll repeat what I said in the other Crusade thread:

Crusade isn't a competitive game. It's not designed in that way. It's Necromunda, but for 40K. You don't play Necromunda competitively, as such a thing doesn't work once you start adding advances, experience, new fighters, injuries and so on.

The same applies here, so the people worrying about things being "out of control" or the "choices" everyone [or "cheesy" in the case of this new thread] will be making can probably ease off the gas a bit. This is not as big an issue as some are making it out to be.

As much as 9th is 40K "Tournament Edition", there isn't going to be a "tournament meta" for Crusade, as it's not a competitive game.

We have competitive events for wife carrying run, beret toss and dumpling eating. non of those things were designed to be used for competitions, yet here we are . People make a competition out of everything, it is their nature. Plus competition is good. The crusade stuff on the other hand is, I think, funny .

Also when I started in 8th ed, everyone was telling that 8th is less tournament driven then editions before, and that it is actualy casual and streamlined.

How often do you play competitive Necromunda?

Never, because it is not played here. But if it was played and I was playing it , then I assume it would look in a similar way to infinity, that one being a skirmish game too. And Poland got known in the world for a very specific way of playing the game around the world, called kurwa spam .

Is it played anywhere though?

Goonhammer, as much as I love the site, appears to view Necromunda as a semi-competitive to competitive game, or at least that's the vibe I get from many of their articles.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How often do you play competitive Necromunda?

I played Mordheim with competitive people once, it was awful and I never want to do it again.

One minor thing that should probably be houseruled is to switch the "extra hit on unmodified 6's" and "+1 for To Hit rolls" entries in the Weapon Enhancements table.

As far as I can tell, the extra hits is exactly the same if the attacker doesn't have rerolls, is only marginally worse if the attacker does have rerolls, and is always better for Overwatch, and the extra hits can both be used by Commanders AND can be stacked with Markerlight bonuses.

Like I said, minor thing.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I played Mordheim with competitive people once, it was awful and I never want to do it again.

This is sort of my point.

I don't think we need to concerned about overpowered combos in Crusade as it's not a game that gets played in that manner. As I said, it's like Necromunda (or Mordheim, if you prefer) for 40K, and the type of people who play that game will be the type that gravitate to Crusade.

Crusade is about playing campaigns and storytelling, not meta-crunching competitive lists. You're not going to play games of "Crusade" against random people like you would a standard matched play pick-up game.

Some people play competitive DnD. I find the concept baffling, but hey, whatever they enjoy I guess.