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.

 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.