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.

So me and a friend started out crusade yesterday.

I was bringing 25 Power of Death Skull Orks my mate was bringing 25 Power of White Scars.

I'm more of a competitive matched play player but I thought I'd give it a go and here are my observations.

Sadly I have to report that I just don't think the games work at 25 PL on a tiny table for several reasons.
1. Power level is wonky as hell, I thought the points re-balance was bad but when my opponent brings a unit of Aggressors for 5 PL and my answer is a 6 PL shokkjump dragsta I honestly don't know what the devs are smoking. So straight away you are starting off with a massive disparity.
2. On the tiny board the ability to play tactically is virtually non existent. I screened my warboss who I had spent requisition points on to make the biggest boss and give him the killa klaw. My opponents Bike Chaplain shot across virtually the entire length and breadth of the table, the screen was cleared by his other shooting and my warboss dead after the ensuing charge on Turn 1.
3. The objectives didn't even come into play as everything was dead on Turn 2.
4. The actual crusade system as it currently stands feels like a pre-Alpha experience. Seriously all the hype for this?

Listen, I don't want to be this harsh as I was genuinely looking forwards to playing some crusade and hyped for it. But if GW can't even get the power levels somewhere close to sensible its a non starter.

I'm sure once everyone has a codex with their own crusade stuff and revised power levels it could be awesome, but we don't spend the money we spend on this hobby to have a game that doesn't work in the here and now GW.

You could have fixed most of this with a better points adjustment in the munitorum manual and some kind of power level pass.

Instead certain armies are going to be virtually unplayable until codex. And the disparity is really really apparent in smaller games. It's masked a bit at 2k where you can just about have a balanced-ish game providing both players are out to enjoy it rather than stomp on one another.


Really disappointed, all that hype and I'm just left cold by this. We've both decided to drop crusade until it comes out of the Alpha stage.

In conclusion if you want to have a balanced and fun experience in smaller games, stick to kill team or dust off your 20 year old copy of Necromunda. That was a balanced and tactical game.

I'd wait on crusade until we have something playable. be interested to hear other people's views.

Thanks for sharing your experience! I'm looking forward to starting a Crusade with my local gaming group myself.

1. Do you feel it would make a difference if you would substitute 1 point of Power Level with 20 regular points?

2. Sounds a bit like you were caught off guard with his engagement range. Do you think knowing about his capabilities now that a second game would go differently?

Maybe it will get better after a few games, and when you play against more same level armies. Orcs vs WS seems a bit too much in favour of the marines.

switching to Points likely won't solve anything, GW always has some units with wonky points too *shrugs*

a_typical_hero wrote:
Thanks for sharing your experience! I'm looking forward to starting a Crusade with my local gaming group myself.

1. Do you feel it would make a difference if you would substitute 1 point of Power Level with 20 regular points?

2. Sounds a bit like you were caught off guard with his engagement range. Do you think knowing about his capabilities now that a second game would go differently?

1. Perhaps, but i don't think points are in a great position either balance wise.
2. Wasn't caught off guard, I knew the threat range on his Chaplain and I think it was among his last deployment drops, as I said I did screen my warboss as I guessed he would go for the game breaking charge on turn 1. I guess in hindsight I could have turtled my entire army in the corner on my left flank behind a big piece of obscuring. But as the objectives were in the centre it would have been a virtual concession to the mission. In progressive missions I don't think you can afford to play like that unless you are super fast and can still get onto the objectives in the first turn. It would have taken my army two turns from their to reach the centre.

The crux of the issue lies with what my opponent could bring for 25 PL compared to what I could bring.

As I said the disparity in power level really stands out like a sore thumb in smaller games.

Smaller level skirmish games should be about tactics,moving from cover to cover. They should feel intense.

I just don't think 40k even works as a system at that points level.

have you ever attemped to run a bigger table, that should alleviate alot of the issues if the balance between the factions playing isn't as dreadfull.

however you also have played orks against marines, so any point about balance, regardless if pts or PL are used becomes moot anyways..

Not Online!!! wrote:
have you ever attemped to run a bigger table, that should alleviate alot of the issues if the balance between the factions playing isn't as dreadfull.

however you also have played orks against marines, so any point about balance, regardless if pts or PL are used becomes moot anyways..

I'm an old enough ork with long enough teef to know that the game isn't 100% balanced, and its virtually impossible to attain those levels of balance.

But in 8th edition using ITC missions Ork could compete and sometimes win an event.

We've had all this hype for this edition and I've shelled out hundreds of quid.

And we now find ourselves in a worse balance position than how we left the last edition, how is that even possible?

So me and my buddy who are both hyped for crusade, he has bought two box sets of Indomitus and has been working on painting a brand new White Scars army for several months in anticipation of 9th. We now can't play Crusade against each other unless we basically self regulate the game.
Sort out the power levels because GW couldn't
Out right ban things like Aggressors because they are broken
And play on a different table size to that which is mandated in the rules and was apparently tested .

It's not acceptable really is it?

We shouldn't have to go through periods where the game isn't balanced in the slightest because GW is releasing a new edition.

It's like we are all beta testers.

You seem to forget that that unbalance, and staggered release of dexes therefore power disparity on the end users population is a buisness model for GW.

we know all the dexes are ready, but you can bet that gw 's intent to stagger them for monetary reasons.

So me and my buddy who are both hyped for crusade, he has bought two box sets of Indomitus and has been working on painting a brand new White Scars army for several months in anticipation of 9th. We now can't play Crusade against each other unless we basically self regulate the game.
Sort out the power levels because GW couldn't
Out right ban things like Aggressors because they are broken
And play on a different table size to that which is mandated in the rules and was apparently tested .

It's not acceptable really is it?

Yes it isn't but in a way you , and others like me, that have a close group / friend, with which we can easily work to solve these issues internally.

others don't even have that.

As for betatesting, i had a funny little chat with a nice lad on dakka about impending balance changes when the fist rules and pts values showed up.
Needless to say that was 2020 / 6 /4, and pretty much happened as predicted more or less.


Gw hasn't changed since 7th, the only thing they got was the least possible improvement and a PR team and their earnings proof them right, and so long people blindly buy, buy every new SM dex, etc. so long they don't need to change.

The change from softcover to hard cover book is only there to grant the illusion of a premium product, which it isn't considering proofreading is seemingly non existent for a multi million company nowadays, but why should they.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You seem to forget that that unbalance, and staggered release of dexes therefore power disparity on the end users population is a buisness model for GW.

we know all the dexes are ready, but you can bet that gw 's intent to stagger them for monetary reasons.

So me and my buddy who are both hyped for crusade, he has bought two box sets of Indomitus and has been working on painting a brand new White Scars army for several months in anticipation of 9th. We now can't play Crusade against each other unless we basically self regulate the game.
Sort out the power levels because GW couldn't
Out right ban things like Aggressors because they are broken
And play on a different table size to that which is mandated in the rules and was apparently tested .

It's not acceptable really is it?

Yes it isn't but in a way you , and others like me, that have a close group / friend, with which we can easily work to solve these issues internally.

others don't even have that.

As for betatesting, i had a funny little chat with a nice lad on dakka about impending balance changes when the fist rules and pts values showed up.
Needless to say that was 2020 / 6 /4, and pretty much happened as predicted more or less.


Gw hasn't changed since 7th, the only thing they got was the least possible improvement and a PR team and their earnings proof them right, and so long people blindly buy, buy every new SM dex, etc. so long they don't need to change.

The change from softcover to hard cover book is only there to grant the illusion of a premium product, which it isn't considering proofreading is seemingly non existent for a multi million company nowadays, but why should they.

I totally agree with everything you have said there.

And in all honestly I'm totally hooked on the game and will continue to throw vast sums of money at GW until the day I die.
Totally addicted at this point, so I will continue to pay and gripe while I do so.

But in the long run this approach really won't work for GW.

There are plenty of other games on the market and newer players without my emotional attachment to the hobby will gravitate towards the better balanced games, and won't put up with this
cycle of tearing every thing up and starting again that GW does on a 2-3 year rotation.

People want a game that works out of the box from day 1, not having to wait until a codex to be able to play their faction on an even footing.
New players will grow tired of buying a new codex, using it maybe a year sometimes even less than that and then having to start the cycle all over again.
Each time with the promise that this new edition will be balanced and has been play tested.

You can only lead a donkey to the well so many times

PL right now sucks as a balance measure. The points were balanced in a 3 year process, but the PL were never touched.

I mean, this doesn't seem like it has a great deal to do with the Crusade system, so much as there being an issue with the disparity between certain Space Marine units and everything else, tbh.

 Nazrak wrote:
I mean, this doesn't seem like it has a great deal to do with the Crusade system, so much as there being an issue with the disparity between certain Space Marine units and everything else, tbh.

This, it's also why i scoff at narrative players stating they don't care about balance.

it would be way easier f.e. to modify units and campaigns when all sides involved would actually start from a somewhat level playing field.

It's also why i doubt that crusade will make narrative better, because it still suffers the underlying balance problems.

Overall power level of factions aside, playing with low point values increases the chance for skew between both players.

It probably makes sense to think about limitations to army building similar to how Kill Team started.

I'm talking about stuff like...

Below 35 PL points you may not take:
- Units with 2+ armor (or 3+ armor and +1 to their armor saves...)
- No Vehicles / Monsters with T7 or higher
- No model with 10+ LP
- Only psyker who can manifest 1 power per phase
- and so on

Needs some finetuning to catch stuff like Aggressors which are basically a hard counter to any horde based approach at that point level.

absolutely, but see, there's an issue, a single leman russ f.e. is hardly an issue to eliminate, despite T8, meanwhile terminators pose a significantly harder to shift and more dangerous unit you'd not catch aswell.

Psykers are pretty much a must have for some factions, others have potential sidestepping abilities, etc.

the problem is less the limitations and additions you can put into your personal experience but the fact that you have to intervene that heavily in the first place.

Sadly I have to report that I just don't think the games work at 25 PL on a tiny table for several reasons.

Honestly, as others have said, it's not the Crusade system itself that's at fault here. It's the fact that PL is terrible, and also the fact that the game really can't handle anything that small and still "work". It REALLY starts to fall apart at anything south of 1000points unless you use restrictions. 25 PL is roughly 500 pts right? Games that small were difficult in 8th and required a lot careful planning because the game only "balances" once you get into that 1000 point range. The new edition has made this worse IMO, and 25 PL is likely to be unplayable without a lot of restrictions.

Our group has had some success using a highlander system for combat patrol games. Basically, you can have however many Troops slots you can fit but everything else is 0-1. So only 1 HQ, only 1 HS, etc etc. It's still not perfect but it's closer. I had said when they announced the different point levels for 9th that it would be a neat trick to make the game work at 500 points, and had assumed that they would add some additional rules for games that small, but as it stands, I'd agree that I don't think it works very well at that size.

Pickled_egg wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
have you ever attemped to run a bigger table, that should alleviate alot of the issues if the balance between the factions playing isn't as dreadfull.

however you also have played orks against marines, so any point about balance, regardless if pts or PL are used becomes moot anyways..

I'm an old enough ork with long enough teef to know that the game isn't 100% balanced, and its virtually impossible to attain those levels of balance.

But in 8th edition using ITC missions Ork could compete and sometimes win an event.

We've had all this hype for this edition and I've shelled out hundreds of quid.

And we now find ourselves in a worse balance position than how we left the last edition, how is that even possible?

So me and my buddy who are both hyped for crusade, he has bought two box sets of Indomitus and has been working on painting a brand new White Scars army for several months in anticipation of 9th. We now can't play Crusade against each other unless we basically self regulate the game.
Sort out the power levels because GW couldn't
Out right ban things like Aggressors because they are broken
And play on a different table size to that which is mandated in the rules and was apparently tested .

It's not acceptable really is it?

We shouldn't have to go through periods where the game isn't balanced in the slightest because GW is releasing a new edition.

It's like we are all beta testers.

TBF, you are saying this before GW actually updates PLs, which they have announced they are going to be doing for free sometime soon.

Unless they did that, and I didn't see it yet? You're basically paying with an abstracted version of index points values from 8th AFAIK PLs haven't really changed...ever.

the_scotsman wrote:

Pickled_egg wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
have you ever attemped to run a bigger table, that should alleviate alot of the issues if the balance between the factions playing isn't as dreadfull.

however you also have played orks against marines, so any point about balance, regardless if pts or PL are used becomes moot anyways..

I'm an old enough ork with long enough teef to know that the game isn't 100% balanced, and its virtually impossible to attain those levels of balance.

But in 8th edition using ITC missions Ork could compete and sometimes win an event.

We've had all this hype for this edition and I've shelled out hundreds of quid.

And we now find ourselves in a worse balance position than how we left the last edition, how is that even possible?

So me and my buddy who are both hyped for crusade, he has bought two box sets of Indomitus and has been working on painting a brand new White Scars army for several months in anticipation of 9th. We now can't play Crusade against each other unless we basically self regulate the game.
Sort out the power levels because GW couldn't
Out right ban things like Aggressors because they are broken
And play on a different table size to that which is mandated in the rules and was apparently tested .

It's not acceptable really is it?

We shouldn't have to go through periods where the game isn't balanced in the slightest because GW is releasing a new edition.

It's like we are all beta testers.

TBF, you are saying this before GW actually updates PLs, which they have announced they are going to be doing for free sometime soon.

Unless they did that, and I didn't see it yet? You're basically paying with an abstracted version of index points values from 8th AFAIK PLs haven't really changed...ever.

That's my entire poiint.

The game is out but crusade is unplayable in its current form for several reasons, the prime one being the power level disparity.

I basically paid for a rulebook that doesn't work out of the box.

Hence my comparing it to a beta stage video game

So you mentioned that you used some of your RP to make your boss the biggest boss; did you save the other 4?

Which unit was marked for greatness post battle; you mentioned you didn't get to achieve any agendas, so you probably didn't gain any battle honours yet, although the unit you marked for greatness should be really close.

What I would do in your shoes is not worry about objectives and play to your agendas. Let the marine have the "Victory" while you worry about succeeding on agendas to level your units. Crusade is not about a battle; it's about a war.

I don't know orks, so I can't recommend specific easy to achieve agendas that will help your units level, or specific BH once they do, nor can I recommend which Crusade relics/ WL traits would help most.

Sounds like you might want a bit more cover on your table too- you said you had one obscuring that you could use, but it was too far back; did you have any dense terrain?

On a 30" wide board, you need 2 pieces in each deployment Zone, both of which are far enough forward that you can use them; this pieces need either Obscuring or Dense, and both should also be Light + Heavy. Then you need 2 for no man's land that meet the same criteria. Then obstacles on top of that.

With these board sizes, think 1 largish Dense or Obscuring terrain, + 2-3 obstacles or a patch of difficult ground per 15 x 15 square.

Finally, could reserve units have helped you with a counter attack? Having played once, did you learn anything that will help in your next game?

Got a few questions for the OP, youre playing on the 30 x 44 recommended board side for 25pl (approx 500 points)? That should be pretty spacious really given the low number of models.

What was the terrain like? It sounds like he had free LoS to everything.

You were aware the chaplain could reliably charge 24" but still deployed on the line anyway? His bike starts 34" away from your back table edge, dont give them easy charges.

25 PL / 500 Points games are notorious for their Rock/Paper/Scissors nature. Thats a characteristic of tiny games, not the PL system behind inherently broken.

Sterling191 wrote:
25 PL / 500 Points games are notorious for their Rock/Paper/Scissors nature. Thats a characteristic of tiny games, not the PL system behind inherently broken.

meanwhile KT is even smaller and less that way, granted i think 500 pts games could profit alot from implementing KT rules like cover and AA system to avoid such rock paper scissor issues.

I'm 4 games into our 4 person crusade campaign (thanks tabletop simulator!) and we'ere just about to move up to 50 power level.

I agree with you that PL is pretty janked, we had to internally make some concessions (in what universe are Deathwatch Veterans 10 power for 5 guys??) and I expect some enterprising fans to come up with a handy conversion-to-points metric pretty quickly.

At 25 power level the games are pretty short and decisive, and definitely favour some armies/tactics better. Only having 3 or 4 units on the table makes weathering any sort of shooting power pretty much a death sentence, even when there's ample terrain on board. I'm excited to move up to 50 power and flatten the curve a bit more.

That said, I think the campaign structure itself is pretty awesome, especially in comparison to some of the duds GW has put out before. Tracking units your units is pretty fun, the agenda secondaries are a good system, and the upgrades/injuries aren't so busted to just snowball out of control. Likewise, there's a pretty good handicap system (both the use of a roster, and the crusade-points) that keep the whole thing from just falling apart as soon as one person gets ahead. You can lose a lot of games, but still make progress.
It's ment to be progressive, and these early 25PL games are just the first few baby steps. No one should be taking them that seriously. This is the part of the RPG where you're killing giant rats (sometime's you're the rat).

Narrative campaigns should always have some house rule tweaking, so I think you should really take a second look at running a campaign rather than just giving up after a game or two. Work out with your friend/s how to convert to points (1PL=20 points is a good ratio I think), or skip the lower powered games and just get right to the meat where you know the game plays better.
Hell, if you want to, bring over those killteam rules for smaller games and just attach the crusade/experience system to it. That sounds fun as hell.

We are planning on incorporating rules from Mordheim and Inquisitor to add some further depth to the roleplaying elements. The customization possibilities in Crusade are pretty limited, especially considering the use of a D6 everywhere makes potential outcomes a lot less interesting.

Like most tabletop games, Crusade especially will play better with a DM who helps to mitigate the fact that certain powergaming list combos will run over their opponents.

a "matched play" Crusade is unlikely to ever happen from GW, it will be incumbent on players to cobble one together.

 McGibs wrote:


Hell, if you want to, bring over those killteam rules for smaller games and just attach the crusade/experience system to it. That sounds fun as hell.

Good to see I'm not the only one doing this. KT's rules are great; their campaign/ post game wasn't great.

It is a bit wonky though, because KT advances are by model not unit. Replacing the missions with Crusade Combat Patrol missions will let you get agendas in, and you can track agenda completion to unit not model. Takes a lil bit o tweaking, but not much.

In our campaign, four of the Crusades start as 5 man Kill Teams- talking 2 PL tops. So we had to KT it to start.

This sounds like a complaint about PL - yes PL is complete gak. Rerun it with 500pts instead of 25PL and see what you get...

But this is also a complaint about general balance right? White Scars are way way ahead in power over Death Skulls, it's not even funny.

So it only remains to be asked; is this even a complaint about Crusade? You don't really mention the rules or the campaign element.

Rerun it with 500pts instead of 25PL and see what you get...

Probably about the same is my guess. This game just doesn't (generally) work very well at that level. You're better off playing Kill Team Elites at that point. The armies just aren't made to scale down that far without a lot of additional rules being necessary to ensure balance.

What size table were you playing on?

Not a Crusade problem. It's a Space Marine problem.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't see how "Crusade" had anything to do with the game.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Not a Crusade problem. It's a Space Marine problem.

I'll echo this.

I haven't looked much at Crusade, but (correct me if I'm wrong) your early games aren't too different from ordinary matched play, excepting the use of PL instead of Points.

And SM are, right now, rather borked. Orks are not.