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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
... a short list of meangful USRs combined with a broad implementation of shared weapon profiles will get you really far.

Certainly further than every unit having its own bespoke rule on top of an anaemic list of USRs.

Just to add, there also used to be special rules for Monstrous Creatures (e.g. their attacks would ignore armour saves because of their sheer size and bulk). This, in addition to their WS and strength stats, meant that the same weapon would perform very differently on them compared with infantry.

Of course that meant that shooty monsters were shooty and still good in melee because MC rules.

That was the reason reason Dakkafexes and Dakkaflyrants tended to dominate the melee versions, there was little downside to taking guns because the important melee rules were baked into the unit rules.

In other words it was such a powerful rule that it was practically impossible to design an internally balanced MC unit around it, which is also why MC rules kept being changed from edition to edition.

 Tyran wrote:
Of course that meant that shooty monsters were shooty and still good in melee because MC rules.

That was the reason reason Dakkafexes and Dakkaflyrants tended to dominate the melee versions, there was little downside to taking guns because the important melee rules were baked into the unit rules.

In other words it was such a powerful rule that it was practically impossible to design an internally balanced MC unit around it, which is also why MC rules kept being changed from edition to edition.

The MC rules. for CC damage were totally fine. MCs were an issue only because weapons like Lascannons could only inflict single wounds at a time. If any adjustment was needed, it was there.

the instant death rules were IMO lopsided and could have been altered.

Double Toughness in a 10 cap system means anything t6+ can never be one shot.

instead, you could have had 'lethal damage' where the damage table goes to L after the first 2+ (ie T4 vs S5 (5+), S6 (6+), S7 (L) (ie, not poison) inflicts 2 pts of damage on the target. You could even go up incrementally, so S7 against T4 is 2damage, S8 3 damage, etc. By putting it into the table you make it simpler to use.

That gives you a better lethality spread (Strength 3pts or more higher), meaning that only when you get to T8 is it impossible, rather than 6, making it a bit more reasonable.

You could instead have a USR that you apply to weapons individually (more cumbersome) that inflicts additional damage.

^That's a pretty reasonable way to go about it, although that specific implementation would still leave Lascannons at 1 Damage against T 7, which was a pretty common Toughness value iirc.

But it reminds me of the old 2nd ed Save Mod by Strength in CC thing, where S4 was -1, S5 -2 (? or something like that). Which is a mechanic I think back to quite often. It was just a straight bonus rather than the comparative one like you suggested, but just having certain modifiers based on other characteristics, comparative or not, seems like a potentially useful tool in the toolkit.

Yeah there's a couple of ways you could do it - you could just start at the point an attack wounds on a 2+ (so 2pts higher than T), which makes it a bit deadlier for lower T models.

You could also afix a static damage value to a Strength, independent of anything else.

like, S6-7 D2, S8-9 D3, S10 D4.

 Hellebore wrote:
the instant death rules were IMO lopsided and could have been altered.

Double Toughness in a 10 cap system means anything t6+ can never be one shot.

instead, you could have had 'lethal damage' where the damage table goes to L after the first 2+ (ie T4 vs S5 (5+), S6 (6+), S7 (L) (ie, not poison) inflicts 2 pts of damage on the target. You could even go up incrementally, so S7 against T4 is 2damage, S8 3 damage, etc. By putting it into the table you make it simpler to use.

That gives you a better lethality spread (Strength 3pts or more higher), meaning that only when you get to T8 is it impossible, rather than 6, making it a bit more reasonable.

You could instead have a USR that you apply to weapons individually (more cumbersome) that inflicts additional damage.

As i still actively play 5th, i have no problem with the system, sure you cannot one shot a carnifex, but unlike a tank (that is it's equivalence) it can be hurt by small arms. it is a trade off, also instant death is not just from taking wounds from double T weapons. there are many things in the game that can cause it-force weapons, special characters with unique wargear etc.. of course this is also balanced out by the eternal warrior USR available to several special characters and in the case of the 4th ed tyranid codex (the one we use) anything with synapse including some of the bug bugs.

Hell, even just having MCs roll on the Vehicle Damage table would have been enough - it'd still be a bit weird that a T5 multiwound character could walk off a direct hit from a Demolisher Cannon if they rolled well, but at least it'd remove the "I'm you, but better in every conceivable way" thing that MCs were pulling on armored vehicles.

Slipspace wrote:

leopard wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
To this day I've still never actually seen someone play Crusade, and only know one person irl who has any experience with the format. If not for threads on dakka I'd assume it was not really a successful format.

someone at the local club has mentioned using it for a campaign, seems to be getting a sub zero amount of traction. Have to say I have basically no idea what it is

The problem with Crusade is it's quite a complex and intimidating-looking system if you have no experience with it. Just flick through the Crusade section of any Codex and you'll see it appears like a lot of work and info for questionable improvements to your gaming. That's likely what turns people off.

As far as the general direction this tread has gone in, I agree that tournament play has driven much of what GW has done during 8th-10th. In some ways this is good. Gathering standardised data about army strength is very useful to help balance the game. My problem is GW don't seem to be able to (or want to) interpret the data at all and seem to concentrate far too much on win rate and not enough on other factors like what successful armies look like, what variety there is and how they actually play. I think the ultra standardised approach to tournaments is a massive problem. Randomness is not the great enemy in a tournament setting. The correct amount of randomness is essential in testing the key skills that should be needed in wargaming. I don't know the exact amount of randomness that should be injected but I can tell you it's more than we've had since the ITC/WTC became so prominent.

The problem with crusade, in my own experimenting with it till I quit out of modern 40k altogether, is the fact that it was slapped together without even the barest attempt at establishing some balance control. Units are mostly fine but crusade has worse hero hammer problems than old school warhammer fantasy, we're talking characters getting increased toughness, bull gak 2+/3++/5+++ re rolling statlines on top of wound regeneration each turn. I think I joked here or somewhere else a long time ago when 9th started that it basically turned any marine or toughner character into a bloody primarch by the fifth campaign game. It's just bad. Especially when you look at the unit buffs and it's relatively chill buffs like a 1+ to this stat here or a re-roll here. Meanwhile your random ass marine captain can end up being able to slap Guilliman's cheeks back to Ultramar in a duel.

Oh and almost forgot but Crusade becomes pointless for the opposing player who begins to lose repeatedly. The boons from victory start to cascade fast and if you fall behind in victory ratio it's demoralizing and kind of pointless to keep going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My biggest issue with Crusade is it isn't actually a narrative system.

I have played in about 6 crusades so far, and in almost all of them, about three people were making narrative choices, writing narratives after games, and really evolving the story of their characters.

The other twenty were furiously playing games to level up as fast as possible so they could win.

"Why is my Imperial Guard fighting the Space Marines? Why, because it was the only game I could try and my character is only 6XP from the Heroic rank."

Crusade feels like an MMO where the non-narrative "grinding" overwhelms the truly narrative battles. It doubles down on this by playing for progression without a world. My daemons and my buddy's daemons are playing the great game... With themselves. Khorne is winning in his, Slaanesh is winning in mine. He wanted to decouple ours because he didn't like being debuffed - and the rules don't even recommend they should be coupled, so of course he declined my house rule suggestion.

My Imperial guard were sorting and planning logistics on a planet the tau had conquered while the Dark Eldar fought Space Marines to advance their territory in Comorragh - and don't forget it was a Sister of Battle who put that Space Marine chaplain in his Dreadnought after the Blood Angels - wait, sorry, red blood-angel cosplaying Ultramarines - orbitally struck her warlord inquisitor off the table. Don't worry, the Inquisitor was fine though - passed the out of action check, so turns out Space Marine Battle Barge Bombardment Cannons just mean you can get up again.

Actually, maybe it is narrative 40k, in the worst way possible: there's lots of gak going on that makes no sense

I think Crusade's main fault is the brainworms that GW seem to have infected much of the community with, which is the idea that campaign = stuff gets bigger. Heroes get more powerful, units get more and more special, when ultimately this makes zero goddamn sense. You already have the tools at hand to make a character 'better', it's called wargear. Start your commander out with a chainsword, slap a power sword on him later. Guard Squad been through the worst? Replace the unit on the roster with a Veteran squad. etc. People just get it in their heads now, and especially GW at that, that progression means things need to be better and better when it's more the mission structure, scaling of games, or endless spawns that make better sense. Even 8th did campaigns better with Cities of Death missions.

 aphyon wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
the instant death rules were IMO lopsided and could have been altered.

Double Toughness in a 10 cap system means anything t6+ can never be one shot.

instead, you could have had 'lethal damage' where the damage table goes to L after the first 2+ (ie T4 vs S5 (5+), S6 (6+), S7 (L) (ie, not poison) inflicts 2 pts of damage on the target. You could even go up incrementally, so S7 against T4 is 2damage, S8 3 damage, etc. By putting it into the table you make it simpler to use.

That gives you a better lethality spread (Strength 3pts or more higher), meaning that only when you get to T8 is it impossible, rather than 6, making it a bit more reasonable.

You could instead have a USR that you apply to weapons individually (more cumbersome) that inflicts additional damage.

As i still actively play 5th, i have no problem with the system, sure you cannot one shot a carnifex, but unlike a tank (that is it's equivalence) it can be hurt by small arms. it is a trade off, also instant death is not just from taking wounds from double T weapons. there are many things in the game that can cause it-force weapons, special characters with unique wargear etc.. of course this is also balanced out by the eternal warrior USR available to several special characters and in the case of the 4th ed tyranid codex (the one we use) anything with synapse including some of the bug bugs.

Virtually all tanks in 3rd+ had an AV10 on them somewhere, so S4 small arms could hurt them fine.

The AV system is just a scaled to wound table anyway - 10=6, 11=7, 12=8, 9=13, 10=14, you need a 4+ at those strengths to inflict a glancing blow, and that was all it took to shake a vehicle and stop it doing anything.

And vehicles had no save at all, so they become more vulnerable to small arms.

A S5 heavy bolter needs a 5 to wound a T6 carnifex/hive tyrant, which then gets a 3+ save. A S5 heavy bolter needs a 5 to glance an AV10 vehicle (the equivalent of T6), with no save, or if it rolls a 6 it can instant kill it. I don't see the immunity to small arms you claim, in fact I see the reverse.


The whole vehicle/MC system in 3rd ed was IMO one of the worst aspects of the rules, apart from the inability to balance AP correctly (unless you make a game where all armies are 3+ saves and nerf AP3+ into the ground ala HH...).

I agree with the progression for progressions sake feeling. It's not just GW making units/characters "more" it's that they do degenerate into MOAAAAARRRRRR



8th cities of death was prob one of the better systems GW has done recently.

 Vankraken wrote:
On the point about adding/removing options. One thing the rework of 8th (which new 40k is roughly based on) is that new system of weapons and defense went away from certain weapons having niches that they were optional at and being to various degrees less ideal for. Instead it went to a system where it's much easier to have optimal weapons that do most things well and having far fewer niches for weapons to occupy.

Using the old AP and cover system. A weapon like a hot shot las rifle or volley gun was designed to beat MEQs due to their AP3 negating the armor of power armor. The shots plinked off Terminator armor while it was sorta overkill against units with t shirt and cardboard armor but it still bypasses their armor. Put the crap armor models in cover and the AP of the weapon didn't matter because you used the cover save instead. Weapons like flamers that ignored cover and had rather meh AP could slaughter those weak armor infantry while power armored units didn't care that much. The super good AP weapons were usually some combination of high strength / low volume of attacks, risky to use (gets hot), and high points cost which while they could kill most things, were rather cost ineffective against those previously mentioned cheap low armor infantry who used numbers to offset their fragility and cover as their primary means of defense. All of this, while not always the most realistic, created a lot of niches and edge cases were each weapon had a useful place on the battlefield without automatically becoming the default "does it all" weapon. It created both hard and soft counters to various unit stats and defenses. Pile onto that the area of effect weapons which made localized model concentration of an area (and not just how many models at under the template but in the nearby area in case of scatter) play heavily into the effectiveness of a weapon and the decision making that went into target selection.

Post rework weapons, armor, removal of proper area of effect attacks, and the gutting of the cover system makes it so more AP is better because it eats through both armor and cover. It's just weapons that deal multiple damage per wound that end up being overkill against single wound models but even then it's not a total waste if they have a FNP style save. All the edge cases and niches that existed before don't have a place because the math doesn't work out. You end up with a lot of fairly redundant weapons that mostly boil down to killing power for point cost. So having a lot of options might not seem very useful now because the game system was built in a way that made the various combinations of stats differ less.

This sums up a lot of my thoughts on how weapons perform now and I can't throw enough exalts at it. Before 8th edition my Dark Angels were focused on using a mixture of plasma or grav because they had pretty significantly different purposes because plasma just went plink plink plink against vehicles while grav would murderize vehicles at a distance a bit further than meltaguns. Even then on infantry or other units there's a serious consideration to maybe use lascannons or grav cannons for anti vehicle or anti heavy infantry work, while plasma cannons are basically a poor man's mortar. Come nuhammer, plasma just is the objective best option, and you've given auras, strats, etc to effectively negate any lack of reliability wholesale. Grav becomes utter garbage, meltaguns range from unreliable to hideously overcompensated depending on FAQ/edition, and lascannons collect dust.

 Hellebore wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
the instant death rules were IMO lopsided and could have been altered.

Double Toughness in a 10 cap system means anything t6+ can never be one shot.

instead, you could have had 'lethal damage' where the damage table goes to L after the first 2+ (ie T4 vs S5 (5+), S6 (6+), S7 (L) (ie, not poison) inflicts 2 pts of damage on the target. You could even go up incrementally, so S7 against T4 is 2damage, S8 3 damage, etc. By putting it into the table you make it simpler to use.

That gives you a better lethality spread (Strength 3pts or more higher), meaning that only when you get to T8 is it impossible, rather than 6, making it a bit more reasonable.

You could instead have a USR that you apply to weapons individually (more cumbersome) that inflicts additional damage.

As i still actively play 5th, i have no problem with the system, sure you cannot one shot a carnifex, but unlike a tank (that is it's equivalence) it can be hurt by small arms. it is a trade off, also instant death is not just from taking wounds from double T weapons. there are many things in the game that can cause it-force weapons, special characters with unique wargear etc.. of course this is also balanced out by the eternal warrior USR available to several special characters and in the case of the 4th ed tyranid codex (the one we use) anything with synapse including some of the bug bugs.

Virtually all tanks in 3rd+ had an AV10 on them somewhere, so S4 small arms could hurt them fine.

The AV system is just a scaled to wound table anyway - 10=6, 11=7, 12=8, 9=13, 10=14, you need a 4+ at those strengths to inflict a glancing blow, and that was all it took to shake a vehicle and stop it doing anything.

And vehicles had no save at all, so they become more vulnerable to small arms.

A S5 heavy bolter needs a 5 to wound a T6 carnifex/hive tyrant, which then gets a 3+ save. A S5 heavy bolter needs a 5 to glance an AV10 vehicle (the equivalent of T6), with no save, or if it rolls a 6 it can instant kill it. I don't see the immunity to small arms you claim, in fact I see the reverse.


The whole vehicle/MC system in 3rd ed was IMO one of the worst aspects of the rules, apart from the inability to balance AP correctly (unless you make a game where all armies are 3+ saves and nerf AP3+ into the ground ala HH...).

Ah i see you miss the entire point of a strategic war game. earlier editions had loads of trade offs where what you did on the table matters as much if not more than just your army build. yes like real world armor many vehicles in 40K have weaker rear or side armor. but to reliably hurt then you need AT weapons. if you use good maneuver and terrain it is possible to get to those armor facing and exploit them, we call that good tactical play. MC could be hurt by small arms from any direction not just from the rear and while you could not "disable" them through cumulative damage this was made up by the fact they had on average 4-6 wounds generally at T6 with a few exceptions like wraith lords with only 3 wounds at T8 with no invulnerable save, so any high strength good AP anti-tank weapon could smoke them. i also find it funny you consider a heavy bolter "small arms" it is a 99mm rocket propelled grenade with a APHE warhead. good against light vehicles and mowing down light/medium infantry. it is also a a heavy weapon so to move it in to place it has to be on a stable platform or you have to snap fire it if the infantry moved with it.

Vehicles also had ways to negate stunned/shaken. eldar had spirit stones, marines had machine spirits, chaos used demonic possession and so on, additionally our group uses the snap fire rules so even stunned vehicles can participate with snap fire on a 6+ specifically to make vehicles somewhat useful in that state. unless they wanted to ram of course, very few vehicles could not take an extra armor equivalent that kept them mobile, save an actual immobilized result.

Additionally everybody has hard saves including vehicles-hard cover saves (once again using tactics terrain and maneuver) and in some cases built in invulnerable saves like contemptor dreadnoughts (5+/6+)

Your comparison also fails to realize the same guns dedicated to killing tanks are the same guns dedicated to killing monsterous creatures all of which are AP1 or 2 meaning outside cover the MCs don't get any kind of save either. the linear comparison is also different-general T6 MC-wounded by las cannon 2+, melta of any kind 2+, plasma 3+(well except weak tau plasma), railgun 2+ etc...

so the field is balanced. even more so since even S3 las guns can wound a T6 creature on a wound roll of a 6+ where as they cannot hurt AV 10 at all.

Remember i still play the game (core 5th ed) regularly, got in 2 games last weekend and watched a 3rd, the system works fine without the need to fiddle with instant death..

I might also add it is nice with only 2 kinds of wounds in the game-causes a wound/causes instant death. and there is only 3 pieces of special wargear used by characters across the entire game that can ever negate an invulnerable save. much better than were they have gone with-wounds, devestating wounds, sustained wounds, mortal wounds etc...

It sounds all nice what you say but in the end(6th/7th edition) you just took scatter lasers/ assault cannons/ auto cannons/ plasma guns that were good against every target. 8th introduced a much higher range of useful weapons because of the improved AP system and the damage stat.

If you can't just glance almost every vehicle to death via hull points with massed S6/7 shots, those weapons become less spam-worthy...

Also I think invuln saves had been multiplying like rabbits by then. I just wouldn't take 6th or 7th as an indication of failure of many of the core rules at that point.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It sounds all nice what you say but in the end(6th/7th edition) you just took scatter lasers/ assault cannons/ auto cannons/ plasma guns that were good against every target. 8th introduced a much higher range of useful weapons because of the improved AP system and the damage stat.

The hull point system was idiotic and punished vehicles with a double damage system. there were a few good things that came out or should i say came back in 6th and 7th. overwatch, snap fire and grenade throwing, aside from that it was not an improvement over 5th edition.

8th introduced a more abstract system.

5th "introduced" weapons to do a specific job because it was based on a tactical wargame where you brought the right weapon to the right fight. surprisingly AT weapons designed to destroy armor or MCs were actually good at that job, killing hordes of light infantry not so much.

It is also why 5th ed is still considered the best of the 3rd-7th ed core rule sets even with its few well known flaws like wound allocation.

Not that AT weapons WERE any good at killing MCs, except en mass, as was previously discussed...

And I would say that 4th ed was the better edition as it was the only time GW was brave enough to use a superior line of sight system to their idiotic 'look from the eyes of your static model standing on a rock shouting while he's supposed to be hiding in a forest' method...

 aphyon wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It sounds all nice what you say but in the end(6th/7th edition) you just took scatter lasers/ assault cannons/ auto cannons/ plasma guns that were good against every target. 8th introduced a much higher range of useful weapons because of the improved AP system and the damage stat.

The hull point system was idiotic and punished vehicles with a double damage system. there were a few good things that came out or should i say came back in 6th and 7th. overwatch, snap fire and grenade throwing, aside from that it was not an improvement over 5th edition.

8th introduced a more abstract system.

5th "introduced" weapons to do a specific job because it was based on a tactical wargame where you brought the right weapon to the right fight. surprisingly AT weapons designed to destroy armor or MCs were actually good at that job, killing hordes of light infantry not so much.

It is also why 5th ed is still considered the best of the 3rd-7th ed core rule sets even with its few well known flaws like wound allocation.

Not really. Everything was good at killing hordes due to the bad ap system, so weapons like the heavy bolter were basically useless, your Bolter killed guardsmen and Boyz good enough. And Plasma killed everything good enough, you didn't need an AP4 weapon that would plink from a 3+ armour that was worn by most infantry units in the game. It also led to strange situations where a lascannon would autowound a tank but needed a 2+ to wound a grot. Said lascannon also did nothing against monsters, or characters with Toughness 5 or better(yes, in 5th these weren't that common because of the unintuitive 4(5) ruling, but usually these chars would have at least a 4++, and then you also had eternal warrior).
Effectively there were no anti-MC weapons, you'd just drown these in shots or take your plasma, that, as said, worked against everything decently enough.

Compared to that the new system has more variance, it just suffers from the dumb points system in 10th and GW giving too many things damage 2.

 Tyran wrote:
Of course that meant that shooty monsters were shooty and still good in melee because MC rules.

That was the reason reason Dakkafexes and Dakkaflyrants tended to dominate the melee versions, there was little downside to taking guns because the important melee rules were baked into the unit rules.

I mean, I would argue it makes sense for MCs to still be good in melee.

e.g. a Carnifex is supposed to be a living battering ram. It's supposed to be strong and powerful enough to ram and destroy vehicles and fortifications. Thus, it's a little strange for it to get stuck in a slap-fight with random infantry.

I would argue, too, that (at least in my experience) loadouts have varied quite significantly between editions. I saw an awful lot of Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes that had a mix of melee and ranged weapons. Especially since Devourers/Deathspitters have not been especially impressive in many editions (even the MC versions).

Point being, while it might require a bit of tweaking, I think it's definitely a rule you can work with without making balancing MCs impossible.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The MC rules. for CC damage were totally fine. MCs were an issue only because weapons like Lascannons could only inflict single wounds at a time. If any adjustment was needed, it was there.

Honestly, I don't think damage was an issue until we saw the rise of units that by all rights should have been vehicles, but which were instead given MC status for extra protection (Riptides and Dreadknights being the biggest offenders)..

Whilst they could (usually) only take 1 damage at a time, MCs rarely had more than 4 wounds (some had as few as 2!). Moreover, few had invulnerable saves and those that did tended to cap out at 5++ (I think a Tzeentch Daemon Prince was one of the very few that could have a 4++). 2+ saves were also very rare, meaning they were vulnerable to AP3 weapons, and also that they could still be ground down by autocannons, poison or other such.

It was only in late-5th/early-6th that we started to see MCs with 2+ saves and 4++ saves (either innately or easily upgradeable with abilities/psychic powers etc.). These were what really broke the MC rules as they ended up being simply too durable, relative to their point costs. Doubly so when compared with vehicles (which, as noted above, had become drastically more vulnerable to damage.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Effectively there were no anti-MC weapons, you'd just drown these in shots or take your plasma, that, as said, worked against everything decently enough.

I'd say the closest thing to anti-MC weapons would be Force weapons. Outside of the Daemons codex*, very few MCs had Eternal Warrior (most relied on being T6+). And few even had invulnerable saves. Thus, they were highly susceptible to Force Weapons.

*which was really stupid because it meant the weapons used by GKs specifically to kill Daemons were all but worthless against actual Daemons.

Before the proliferation of Sv 2+ on MC, I remember relying on Rokkits and Missiles to take them down. Which also weren't as effective against vehicles (pre-HP) since they didn't receive any modifier to the damage table.

 Hellebore wrote:
Not that AT weapons WERE any good at killing MCs, except en mass, as was previously discussed...

And I would say that 4th ed was the better edition as it was the only time GW was brave enough to use a superior line of sight system to their idiotic 'look from the eyes of your static model standing on a rock shouting while he's supposed to be hiding in a forest' method...

I would generally agree. 4th and 5th had a lot in common, but there were certain things about 4th that were better and certain things about 5th I would port into 4th if I could. LIkewise certain things from subsequent editions that I would bring back into 4th to improve it, but 4th probably had the best "bones" of any edition out there in terms of core gameplay mechanics.

 vipoid wrote:

I mean, I would argue it makes sense for MCs to still be good in melee.

e.g. a Carnifex is supposed to be a living battering ram. It's supposed to be strong and powerful enough to ram and destroy vehicles and fortifications. Thus, it's a little strange for it to get stuck in a slap-fight with random infantry.

I would argue, too, that (at least in my experience) loadouts have varied quite significantly between editions. I saw an awful lot of Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes that had a mix of melee and ranged weapons. Especially since Devourers/Deathspitters have not been especially impressive in many editions (even the MC versions).

Point being, while it might require a bit of tweaking, I think it's definitely a rule you can work with without making balancing MCs impossible.

Have you seen a dakkafex model? Its bulk* means it should be able to crush light infantry, but it shouldn't be ignoring Terminator armor or crushing heavy tanks, not without a dedicated melee weapon.

*And it probably would be better represented by giving MCs a tank shock instead of inbuilt ignoring armor and armourbane.

As for loadouts, I didn't start seeing melee Carnifexes until 8th. 4th was kinda (in)famous for dakkafexes and gun-fexes.

 Wyzilla wrote:


The problem with crusade, in my own experimenting with it till I quit out of modern 40k altogether, is the fact that it was slapped together without even the barest attempt at establishing some balance control.

Crusade is not meant to have balance as its priority- the is the entire reason why matched play existed as an ALTERNATIVE to Crusade. If you make balance the priority for all three play modes, you don't actually have three play modes.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Units are mostly fine but crusade has worse hero hammer problems than old school warhammer fantasy, we're talking characters getting increased toughness, bull gak 2+/3++/5+++ re rolling statlines on top of wound regeneration each turn. I think I joked here or somewhere else a long time ago when 9th started that it basically turned any marine or toughner character into a bloody primarch by the fifth campaign game. It's just bad. Especially when you look at the unit buffs and it's relatively chill buffs like a 1+ to this stat here or a re-roll here. Meanwhile your random ass marine captain can end up being able to slap Guilliman's cheeks back to Ultramar in a duel.

There are several things in this quote that indicate you're either exaggerating or mistaken.

1/ You get XP (and therefore battle honours) by achieving Agendas. If your character is trying to get those upgrades, he's not really being killy because he has to focus on Agendas to get the upgrades.
2/ If you give all your upgrades to one unit to power level it, it becomes a bullet magnet, and once it's down, the rest of your army is green easy pickins. Many would say it's better to have 5 units with one upgrade each than one with five.
3/ Being a bullet magnet also makes it more likely you get removed from the game early (and don't complete agendas), and you're more likely to suffer battlescars. And I should note here how much more substantial battlescars are in 10th- WAY more impactful and WAY harder to avoid or get rid of.
4/ Playing with a GM is one way to ensure that "Marked for Greatness" XP actually go to a unit that desrves it, not the unit a powetrgamer most wants to level.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Oh and almost forgot but Crusade becomes pointless for the opposing player who begins to lose repeatedly. The boons from victory start to cascade fast and if you fall behind in victory ratio it's demoralizing and kind of pointless to keep going.

You don't get XP by winning.

I'm going to say this again for the cheap seats because no one ever seems to remember it:

YOU DON'T GET XP FOR WINNING!

In fact, pusuing maximum Agenda completion will often cause you to lose.

Also: 10th's Crusade Blessings are a better balancing mechanism for high-Crusade point armies than the 9th ed system.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Crusade feels like an MMO where the non-narrative "grinding" overwhelms the truly narrative battles.

Just like MMO's only feel that way when you play them that way, Crusade only is that way when you play it that way. Just as this is not the MMO's fault, it is not Crusade's fault either.

 Wyzilla wrote:

I think Crusade's main fault is the brainworms that GW seem to have infected much of the community with, which is the idea that campaign = stuff gets bigger. Heroes get more powerful, units get more and more special, when ultimately this makes zero goddamn sense.

GW didn't put that brainworm there- TSR did with D&D in the 70's, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of RPGs since have followed suit- all susequent versions of D&D, all the White Wolf Storyteller series in all of their editions, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Legend of the Five Rings, GURPS, Deadlands, Kult, Star Wars, Pathfinder... Pretty much all of them. Traveller had no progression system, and someone threw out Paranoia too. There may have been one or two others. Point is, progression was associated with narrative gaming before GW produce it's first game, and progression will continue to be associated with narrative gaming for a very long time because it makes sense to the vast majority of people playing those games, regardless of whether or not YOU think it makes sense.

What GW did was BRING that element to their wargame. Like "Hey, I betcha people who like D&D and White Wolf Games would like Warhammer more if we added a progression system to our games." And surprise, they were right!

Now people who are wargame purists, who don't really like RPGs, don't like the effect that this element has on their Wargame- and that's fine. Those people aren't forced to play Crusade.

Regarding whether or not progression makes sense:

Why do you go to high school before university if progression doesn't make sense? Is it possible to bench 200 lbs before you can bench 40? Can a yellow belt take a black belt in a fight? Do I have more seniority than my coworkers on the first day of my new job? Funny, it kinda seems like living in the post industrial age is kinda built on progression systems, eh?

Now look, I get it: Wargamer wants to build a list and think "Yeah, my tactical squad are veterans of a 100 battles by the time I build my list." That's not the story that Crusade's system was designed to reflect. If that's the story you want to tell, pitch it to your GM. Most armies have a requisition that allows a unit to be added to the roster with XP already on their profile.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The problem with crusade, in my own experimenting with it till I quit out of modern 40k altogether, is the fact that it was slapped together without even the barest attempt at establishing some balance control.

Crusade is not meant to have balance as its priority- the is the entire reason why matched play existed as an ALTERNATIVE to Crusade. If you make balance the priority for all three play modes, you don't actually have three play modes.

Yes you do, because the issue is the approach of the formats, not that all need to be balance. Ridiculous combinations still need to be sorted out to ensure you can't just sweep over the match. Matched play exists for peer to peer armies yes, but for narrative there's still a need for balance - the narrative comes from scenarios, not the idea that any semblance of balance can be thrown out.

There are several things in this quote that indicate you're either exaggerating or mistaken.

1/ You get XP (and therefore battle honours) by achieving Agendas. If your character is trying to get those upgrades, he's not really being killy because he has to focus on Agendas to get the upgrades.
2/ If you give all your upgrades to one unit to power level it, it becomes a bullet magnet, and once it's down, the rest of your army is green easy pickins. Many would say it's better to have 5 units with one upgrade each than one with five.
3/ Being a bullet magnet also makes it more likely you get removed from the game early (and don't complete agendas), and you're more likely to suffer battlescars. And I should note here how much more substantial battlescars are in 10th- WAY more impactful and WAY harder to avoid or get rid of.
4/ Playing with a GM is one way to ensure that "Marked for Greatness" XP actually go to a unit that desrves it, not the unit a powetrgamer most wants to level.

You would be correct were it not for that you can easily complete agendas by killing the enemy which becomes further achievable with upgrades increasing the performance of powerful lists. Or the idea that somehow the rest of the army is vulnerable because you put all of the points into a character - a list of killer marines or eldar is still that. Moreover I'd honestly wish anyone good luck killing the monsters I had come out of a couple crusade attempts with friends during 9th's launch, a deathwing character buddied up with a protective, already seriously durable squad is a bloody nightmare.

You don't get XP by winning.

I'm going to say this again for the cheap seats because no one ever seems to remember it:

YOU DON'T GET XP FOR WINNING!

In fact, pusuing maximum Agenda completion will often cause you to lose.

Also: 10th's Crusade Blessings are a better balancing mechanism for high-Crusade point armies than the 9th ed system.

This feels to again, purposefully focus on the fact that maybe in a vacuum agendas don't equate to victory but in reality it's hard to score anything than the basic xp you get on defeat once one party is able to establish reliable dominance. Complete these agendas... while also trying to not get shot or punched off the board by the enemy who are now even deadlier than in the first two games.

GW didn't put that brainworm there- TSR did with D&D in the 70's, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of RPGs since have followed suit- all susequent versions of D&D, all the White Wolf Storyteller series in all of their editions, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Legend of the Five Rings, GURPS, Deadlands, Kult, Star Wars, Pathfinder... Pretty much all of them. Traveller had no progression system, and someone threw out Paranoia too. There may have been one or two others. Point is, progression was associated with narrative gaming before GW produce it's first game, and progression will continue to be associated with narrative gaming for a very long time because it makes sense to the vast majority of people playing those games, regardless of whether or not YOU think it makes sense.

What GW did was BRING that element to their wargame. Like "Hey, I betcha people who like D&D and White Wolf Games would like Warhammer more if we added a progression system to our games." And surprise, they were right!

Now people who are wargame purists, who don't really like RPGs, don't like the effect that this element has on their Wargame- and that's fine. Those people aren't forced to play Crusade.

Regarding whether or not progression makes sense:

Why do you go to high school before university if progression doesn't make sense? Is it possible to bench 200 lbs before you can bench 40? Can a yellow belt take a black belt in a fight? Do I have more seniority than my coworkers on the first day of my new job? Funny, it kinda seems like living in the post industrial age is kinda built on progression systems, eh?

Now look, I get it: Wargamer wants to build a list and think "Yeah, my tactical squad are veterans of a 100 battles by the time I build my list." That's not the story that Crusade's system was designed to reflect. If that's the story you want to tell, pitch it to your GM. Most armies have a requisition that allows a unit to be added to the roster with XP already on their profile.

No you're not applying common sense. It doesn't matter if the squad has X or Y experience, they have their stats because their stats are made on a d6 system where the leap from WS 3+ to WS 2+ is massive in its abstraction, which is why 40k as an adaption of a d100 Reaper system introduced various things such as toughness to try to account for this total lack of granularity. Upgrades don't work with 40k outside of just outright 'upgrading' to a new unit because the system falls apart very quickly when you start handing out buffs. RPG's have their systems of advancement not because progression is associated with increasing power, but because their systems are based on 3d6, 1d100, d10's, etc which are able to accommodate progression in the first place. The kind of upgrades 40k experiences under Crusade is, in D&D analogy akin to leaping from level 1 to level 8 or so out the gate in such an example of a doubled attack stat on a marine squad. And that's without considering situational buffs so in reality that squad or that tank is actually now possessing a BS of 1+ because of potential auras, spells, or stats getting taken into account. What seems harmless swiftly can turn into a snowball that buries another player. Not terribly surprising campaigns so often just fizzle out in 40k.

The RPG comparison is missing that the 'character' in a 40K campaign is your entire army, not every single model within the entire army. Progression, if you need it, ought to be applied to the army as a whole.

The examples given of wargear changes, a unit being replaced with a veteran equivalent, or just the army getting bigger are all typical progression mechanics for wargame campaigns.

It's treating every individual unit like an RPG character that levels up and gets new and unique abilities that adds a lot to keep track of and breaks the balance.

And, personally at least, I find the idea of every unit that just got killed to a man dusting themselves off and coming back to try again (with new abilities) is ridiculous, along with the implication that my entire 'army' is really just a reinforced platoon or two, rather than the units I field being a subset of a larger force. It actively breaks my immersion in the campaign.

Historical wargames have had campaign systems for decades. I've never seen one that works like Crusade.

 Wyzilla wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The problem with crusade, in my own experimenting with it till I quit out of modern 40k altogether, is the fact that it was slapped together without even the barest attempt at establishing some balance control.

Crusade is not meant to have balance as its priority- the is the entire reason why matched play existed as an ALTERNATIVE to Crusade. If you make balance the priority for all three play modes, you don't actually have three play modes.

Yes you do, because the issue is the approach of the formats, not that all need to be balance. Ridiculous combinations still need to be sorted out to ensure you can't just sweep over the match. Matched play exists for peer to peer armies yes, but for narrative there's still a need for balance - the narrative comes from scenarios, not the idea that any semblance of balance can be thrown out.

There are several things in this quote that indicate you're either exaggerating or mistaken.

1/ You get XP (and therefore battle honours) by achieving Agendas. If your character is trying to get those upgrades, he's not really being killy because he has to focus on Agendas to get the upgrades.
2/ If you give all your upgrades to one unit to power level it, it becomes a bullet magnet, and once it's down, the rest of your army is green easy pickins. Many would say it's better to have 5 units with one upgrade each than one with five.
3/ Being a bullet magnet also makes it more likely you get removed from the game early (and don't complete agendas), and you're more likely to suffer battlescars. And I should note here how much more substantial battlescars are in 10th- WAY more impactful and WAY harder to avoid or get rid of.
4/ Playing with a GM is one way to ensure that "Marked for Greatness" XP actually go to a unit that desrves it, not the unit a powetrgamer most wants to level.

You would be correct were it not for that you can easily complete agendas by killing the enemy which becomes further achievable with upgrades increasing the performance of powerful lists. Or the idea that somehow the rest of the army is vulnerable because you put all of the points into a character - a list of killer marines or eldar is still that. Moreover I'd honestly wish anyone good luck killing the monsters I had come out of a couple crusade attempts with friends during 9th's launch, a deathwing character buddied up with a protective, already seriously durable squad is a bloody nightmare.

You don't get XP by winning.

I'm going to say this again for the cheap seats because no one ever seems to remember it:

YOU DON'T GET XP FOR WINNING!

In fact, pusuing maximum Agenda completion will often cause you to lose.

Also: 10th's Crusade Blessings are a better balancing mechanism for high-Crusade point armies than the 9th ed system.

This feels to again, purposefully focus on the fact that maybe in a vacuum agendas don't equate to victory but in reality it's hard to score anything than the basic xp you get on defeat once one party is able to establish reliable dominance. Complete these agendas... while also trying to not get shot or punched off the board by the enemy who are now even deadlier than in the first two games.

GW didn't put that brainworm there- TSR did with D&D in the 70's, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of RPGs since have followed suit- all susequent versions of D&D, all the White Wolf Storyteller series in all of their editions, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Legend of the Five Rings, GURPS, Deadlands, Kult, Star Wars, Pathfinder... Pretty much all of them. Traveller had no progression system, and someone threw out Paranoia too. There may have been one or two others. Point is, progression was associated with narrative gaming before GW produce it's first game, and progression will continue to be associated with narrative gaming for a very long time because it makes sense to the vast majority of people playing those games, regardless of whether or not YOU think it makes sense.

What GW did was BRING that element to their wargame. Like "Hey, I betcha people who like D&D and White Wolf Games would like Warhammer more if we added a progression system to our games." And surprise, they were right!

Now people who are wargame purists, who don't really like RPGs, don't like the effect that this element has on their Wargame- and that's fine. Those people aren't forced to play Crusade.

Regarding whether or not progression makes sense:

Why do you go to high school before university if progression doesn't make sense? Is it possible to bench 200 lbs before you can bench 40? Can a yellow belt take a black belt in a fight? Do I have more seniority than my coworkers on the first day of my new job? Funny, it kinda seems like living in the post industrial age is kinda built on progression systems, eh?

Now look, I get it: Wargamer wants to build a list and think "Yeah, my tactical squad are veterans of a 100 battles by the time I build my list." That's not the story that Crusade's system was designed to reflect. If that's the story you want to tell, pitch it to your GM. Most armies have a requisition that allows a unit to be added to the roster with XP already on their profile.

No you're not applying common sense. It doesn't matter if the squad has X or Y experience, they have their stats because their stats are made on a d6 system where the leap from WS 3+ to WS 2+ is massive in its abstraction, which is why 40k as an adaption of a d100 Reaper system introduced various things such as toughness to try to account for this total lack of granularity. Upgrades don't work with 40k outside of just outright 'upgrading' to a new unit because the system falls apart very quickly when you start handing out buffs. RPG's have their systems of advancement not because progression is associated with increasing power, but because their systems are based on 3d6, 1d100, d10's, etc which are able to accommodate progression in the first place. The kind of upgrades 40k experiences under Crusade is, in D&D analogy akin to leaping from level 1 to level 8 or so out the gate in such an example of a doubled attack stat on a marine squad. And that's without considering situational buffs so in reality that squad or that tank is actually now possessing a BS of 1+ because of potential auras, spells, or stats getting taken into account. What seems harmless swiftly can turn into a snowball that buries another player. Not terribly surprising campaigns so often just fizzle out in 40k.

Ok, we get it. You hate Crusade because you & yours weren't able to make it work.

 catbarf wrote:

Historical wargames have had campaign systems for decades. I've never seen one that works like Crusade.

For some reason, it's very difficult for 40k players (and GW proper post, like, 1999) to understand that in order for a wargaming campaign to be narratively and mechanically engaging, the majority of that campaign's ruleset needs to be about decisions made and what happens off the table, rather than on the table.

A good campaign system is primarily an off-table game, where the on-table battle is more akin to resolving a contested dice roll to decide the outcome of decisions. A battle where your character gets to use a magic sword is not engaging. A battle to decide a pivotal maneuver you've made at the operational or strategic level, even if its just a standard game of 40k, is far more likely to hold narrative weight.

The reason is obvious, GW sells models, 40k players spend thousands on models. So people want stuff to be about those models instead of a strategic scope that goes far beyond the tabletop.