Thoughts on the 9th ed Crusade rules

[N1SB]

You guys have probably already seen the Crusade rules, but this looks really fun.  My thoughts at the moment:

 

• Crusade-specific missions tend to have this stipulation that basically says "you score Victory Points each turn (normal) EXCEPT the 1st turn".  Now, that hurts me personally because I was planning to spam Nurglings who could infiltrate, but for that very reason, I actually think that's a good rule and attention to detail as to avoid people like me from exploiting it.
   
• Crusade-specific Relics.  Edit - ok thanks to Brother Penitent One and Brother 404 for correcting me, but in short, Warlord Traits and Relics can be acquired differently than normal games, man this is kinda cool it's like getting Feats/Perks in RPGs...but to get back on point with Crusade-specific Relics.  At 1st glance, the obvious go-to was that 2+ to instantly resurrect your (Infantry-only, so no Daemon Princes) character.  Everyone's going for that, I thought!  Then I noticed to get this Von Carstein Ring-acting Relic, you really need to grind Experience Points for that kind so that he could level up to Heroic level.  So it kinda made sense, and that leads to...
   
• Losing is NOT that punishing.  It's not Necromunda levels of brutality/uneveness, as far as I can tell right NOW (but that might change.)  So from what I read, your unit gets wiped out, but it's not like everyone's totally dead, it's more like they're wounded or ran away and it's force depletion.  That unit either loses Experience Points or gets a permanent battle scar (like losing a leg or something), edit - only if you roll a 1 on a D6 in the post-game, thanks again to Brother 404 for reminding me, and it's up to you to decide which.  I think people will just go for losing Experience Points mostly, but converters/roleplayers might opt for the battle scar.
   
• And obviously I'm going to have to figure out Power Levels, because RAW that's what we're supposed to use for Crusade.  I mean, I know how they work, but I have to re-learn which units are good value in Power Level terms.  By the way, we might all want to have a thread for that at a later point.

 

Overall, I be loving this, because it looks like some honest thought went to it.  In that there was someone in the room who, during the rules design process, actually voiced out "wouldn't some jerk try to" do exactly what I was thinking of doing, and they caught it.  The result is...my thought thus far, which may change when we actually play this...no one becomes uber-powerful or is left behind.  Even when someone gets the OP Relic of 2+ Rez, it's just 1 Infantry character.

 

How does this affect other games with a built-in campaign element?  Well, my thoughts:

 

• Necromunda - is actually mostly about gang warfare in a Hive city, that's like its own setting and ruleset.  I think people who play it SPECIFICALLY want their thematic gang or Enforcers, etc.  That's all good, Crusade doesn't replace those I reckon.
   
• Kill Team - the basic skirmish game is completely fine, it's for low-model count and basic Infantry tactics.  But those who want to play it with Elites and Commanders...at which point our meta always considered designing our own house rules for a Combat Patrol/40k in 40 minutes/300 to 500 pts games instead, they will be the ones who want to move wholesale to Crusade.
   
• Campaign Players - even in the 40k tabletop, Matched Play is the norm in our meta since forever.  People buy the campaign books just to see what new rules they introduce.  Horus Heresy/30k/AoD, which was probably the most platform for Forging-A-Narrative, we mostly played Matched Play.  I think GW just needed to introduce a rationale to play Narrative Games, and a very basic RPG leveling system was probably all we needed.

 

Just my 2 cents.  One of our guys introduced Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (Old World-style, 2nd ed I think) and our meta loved that (as there's barely a tabletop RPG culture here).  They're very excited for this, I think.

 

I'll just give an additional thought.  Our meta, mostly new players that started early 8th (when a Warhammer Store opened 15 minutes from me) have ALWAYS been fascinated by the Horus Heresy.  English is not the native language, they still try to read the short stories to get a taste of that.  I think a late 30k era Crusade rules campaign where we just prohibit units with Keywords: <Monstrous Creature>, <Daemon Engine>, <Primaris> might be really fun for these guys.

Edited July 15, 2020 by N1SB

[Rik Lightstar]

I'm really quite excited for this, so are a bunch of the guys at my local club.

 

I'm gonna be doing my Indomitus stuff up all as White Scars for this and then I'll be able to use them in bigger games alongside my Mantis Warriors who also use the same rules.

 

Rik

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

As someone who has just gotten a new job that will involve a lot of away work, I'm really looking forward to trying it.

[Lexington]

Really enjoying the idea, though I think it'll most come into its own with Codexes.

[Warsmith Uveron]

Iam very excited about the crusade and power level games.

 

Almost worth campaigning for a seprate section of the forum just for discussions of it free from the specter of points

[Disruptor_fe404]

I'm putting together an Escalation League campaign using the Crusade framework, to give myself and a couple friends an excuse to downsize the Pile of Shame.

 

Losing units isn't punishing at all; it's a 1/6 chance of getting a bad outcome for them (experience loss or Battle Scar), and you can spend a Requisition to clear it (and you get at least one Requisition per battle).

 

Crusade Blessings are (currently) a solid way of balancing different experience levels across multiple armies playing each other. I also really like that all the Crusade missions are basically Matched Play with a different name (in that they are symmetrical from both objective-scoring and conceptual perspectives), though I'm sure some more involved campaigns can incorporate a wealth of old Narrative Play missions from 8th edition (some of which were super solid).

 

I'm personally a touch wary of power level, which Crusade appears to be built around, but it really doesn't rely on it very much at all beyond the Supply limit, so for anyone else who's considering using points instead, it should be a fairly easy switch.

[chapter master 454]

seems like actual fun, a way of emulating the concept of allocating certain units at a time. Somedays, you send the A-Team. Others you send the C-Team!

[ThePenitentOne]

I really like the fact our agendas pay XP for units rather than RP for the army.

 

I have only seen the leaked copy of the Crusade rules with all of its watermarks and disordered pages, so there are things I'm uncertain about- I think we get the usual warlord traits, we just have to buy them. Cool that multiple characters can have WL traits though.

 

As for Crusade Relics, I didn't know they were instead of regular relics- I thought they might have been used in addition to regular relics, which would still have to be requisitioned. I think you might be right though, they may just replace the regulars- that would be easier.

 

Campaign wise, I will be using the Streets of Death map system from Urban Conquest, though it's highly modified. I've populated 8 of those 5 x 5 card pockets, though I do it all with file folders on a shared drive. Each represents a settlement. There is also a city- it is larger than the settlements, consisting of 45 territories. That's one planet in the system. It remains to be seen whether any of the other planets will be explored.

 

As for Kill Team: two of the factions in our campaign start off very small- too small for Crusade. They need "Prologue" games before they can form a 25PL Combat Patrol. Our plan is to use Kill Team rules for the battle, but follow Crusade rules for post game. This gives us model to model interactions vs. unit to unit.

 

Anyway, I'm stoked for Crusade, and I love hearing about what everyone else has got going on.

[Disruptor_fe404]

I have only seen the leaked copy of the Crusade rules with all of its watermarks and disordered pages, so there are things I'm uncertain about- I think we get the usual warlord traits, we just have to buy them. Cool that multiple characters can have WL traits though.

 

As for Crusade Relics, I didn't know they were instead of regular relics- I thought they might have been used in addition to regular relics, which would still have to be requisitioned. I think you might be right though, they may just replace the regulars- that would be easier.

 

You do indeed buy the Warlord Traits via Requisition, and multiple characters can indeed have them. They are the regular Warlord Traits you have access to (plus the Crusade-mode only Warlord Trait; Inspiring Leader)

 

Crusade Relics are not replacements to regular relics, they are in addition. Regular relics still have to be requisitioned. You only get Crusade Relics from gaining Battle Honours (levelling up).

[MegaVolt87]

Yeah I really like it. I'll stick with the open play and power levels actually, I'll CM (campaign master?) an event with myself and my younger brother. Those battle scars, I will use them as a penalty or the buffs as a consequence for a set piece battle for armoured units that are freshly unused. Already got ideas for the indmni box, my custodes and my IW's as the belligerents. 

[chapter master 454]

So the question is then, if doing a crusade then surely you would want more than just 50PL to pull from thinking about it otherwise you can't really make battles dynamic for size imo. I know it would be quite large but doing a crusade where each player brings 75-100 points would be interesting but I suppose quite intense.

 

Could be fun though to have a campaign with multiple people. Heck, even have a campaign where one player does have 100PL, maybe even 200PL to pull from but you only have your 50PL of marines to fight with and have to pick you battles wisely to win the campaign! Would be a fun gimmick to add as it could mean the 200PL player may get a benefit in some games that go long gets to add another unit during turn 4 and 5 (representing a responding force).

Hmm...ideas are fun.

[Warsmith Uveron]

I think that the idear is that in time the pool of options grows.

[Disruptor_fe404]

So the question is then, if doing a crusade then surely you would want more than just 50PL to pull from thinking about it otherwise you can't really make battles dynamic for size imo. I know it would be quite large but doing a crusade where each player brings 75-100 points would be interesting but I suppose quite intense.

 

75-100 Power wouldn't be any more intense than a 1500-2000 point game; as mentioned, Crusade missions are basically symmetrical. The best solution that I can think of (and Goonhammer agrees) is to just have the Supply Limit requisition not exist, and escalate game sizes on a timeframe so that there's no mismatch between the size of forces. Unless you want a more heavily-curated/Campaign-Mastered activity, which some people very well might!

[Noserenda]

You can always buy more units with requisition, pushing your PL up appropriately but then thats instead of doing other stuff.

I dont imagine there would be any problem with just starting at a different PL if you arent doing a slow grow or similar.

[MegaVolt87]

You can always buy more units with requisition, pushing your PL up appropriately but then thats instead of doing other stuff.

 

I dont imagine there would be any problem with just starting at a different PL if you arent doing a slow grow or similar.

 

True, but looks like you can only hold 5 req points, so would have to cash them in for 25 power as each point is +5 power if you wait. Depends on how long you would want the buildup to a strike force or whatever, pacing etc. 

[Warsmith Uveron]

 

 

So the question is then, if doing a crusade then surely you would want more than just 50PL to pull from thinking about it otherwise you can't really make battles dynamic for size imo. I know it would be quite large but doing a crusade where each player brings 75-100 points would be interesting but I suppose quite intense.

75-100 Power wouldn't be any more intense than a 1500-2000 point game; as mentioned, Crusade missions are basically symmetrical. The best solution that I can think of (and Goonhammer agrees) is to just have the Supply Limit requisition not exist, and escalate game sizes on a timeframe so that there's no mismatch between the size of forces. Unless you want a more heavily-curated/Campaign-Mastered activity, which some people very well might!

I think something to remember is that in many ways Crusade is established to play solo as well so kinda expects you not to be playing in any aet league. Its just you and your adventures.

[N1SB]

Thanks for catching my errors in the OP, sorry about that:

 

 

Losing units isn't punishing at all; it's a 1/6 chance of getting a bad outcome for them (experience loss or Battle Scar), and you can spend a Requisition to clear it (and you get at least one Requisition per battle).

 

You're right, and I totally forgot to mention it, and it's important because players really don't have to worry about losing a unit they spent time converting.

 

 

I have only seen the leaked copy of the Crusade rules with all of its watermarks and disordered pages, so there are things I'm uncertain about- I think we get the usual warlord traits, we just have to buy them. Cool that multiple characters can have WL traits though.

 

As for Crusade Relics, I didn't know they were instead of regular relics- I thought they might have been used in addition to regular relics, which would still have to be requisitioned. I think you might be right though, they may just replace the regulars- that would be easier.

 

You do indeed buy the Warlord Traits via Requisition, and multiple characters can indeed have them. They are the regular Warlord Traits you have access to (plus the Crusade-mode only Warlord Trait; Inspiring Leader)

 

Crusade Relics are not replacements to regular relics, they are in addition. Regular relics still have to be requisitioned. You only get Crusade Relics from gaining Battle Honours (levelling up).

 

 

And this I totally missed, I didn't just unremember, I think I was obsessing over the Relic of 2+ Rez Von Carstein-style.  That is very cool to reflect characters leveling up together.  Now I'm thinking of armies like, say, Genestealer Cult and Sisters of Battle which have some cheap Character units that can benefit from this.  Thanks for mentioning this.

[nanosquid]

Locally the "cool dudes" group (read: my friends) are all looking forward to using this, albeit with points balance on top of the PL command point bonuses.

 

Just the inclusion of these frameworks alongside mechanics like the Action system are a real godsend for simulationist types like me. With such things baked into the core rulebook it'll be way easier to come up with custom missions and gimmicks to fit narrative, since I won't be asking people to play along with jury-rigged homebrew rules, just jury-rigged homebrew entries based on existing rules. Not a huge difference, but I can now, for example, make control panels on my terrain pieces that can be interacted with by infantry models without having to come up with some system for that. I can just say "an infantry model within 2" can use this to perform action: x".

 

Subtle, but just having that in the rulebook is going to make people more willing to try out such funsies when normally it's like pulling teeth.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

It's going to be criminally underplayed, just like the Chapter Approved matched play missions from the past few years and narrative game modes in general. Major influencers helping reduce the stigma against non-matched play and pushing for more narrative play would go a long way towards a larger acceptance of the other game modes. I realize that organizations like the ITC are meant to facilitate matched play tournament circuits so it's not their burden to promote narrative play, but there is definitely a huge skew and tendency for games to be ITC/matched play by default, even for random casual beer and pretzels pickup games.

 

Maybe some of the fault lies from early AoS with the no points and wacky rules like bonuses if you sang or danced, but everything non-matched in 40K has been a flop so far. Points level? Flop. Narrative play? Flop. Create your own tank/hero? Flop. Campaigns? Flop. I'm not saying nobody, nowhere played these things, ever, but overwhelmingly the discussion on the Internet and the baseline for random games with strangers has been generic matched play missions.

[MegaVolt87]

It's going to be criminally underplayed, just like the Chapter Approved matched play missions from the past few years and narrative game modes in general. Major influencers helping reduce the stigma against non-matched play and pushing for more narrative play would go a long way towards a larger acceptance of the other game modes. I realize that organizations like the ITC are meant to facilitate matched play tournament circuits so it's not their burden to promote narrative play, but there is definitely a huge skew and tendency for games to be ITC/matched play by default, even for random casual beer and pretzels pickup games.

 

Maybe some of the fault lies from early AoS with the no points and wacky rules like bonuses if you sang or danced, but everything non-matched in 40K has been a flop so far. Points level? Flop. Narrative play? Flop. Create your own tank/hero? Flop. Campaigns? Flop. I'm not saying nobody, nowhere played these things, ever, but overwhelmingly the discussion on the Internet and the baseline for random games with strangers has been generic matched play missions.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to blame anyone at this point personally. Like Nanosquid says its perfect for games with tight groups with a personal connection. When you game with a stranger matched play is the universal language, you know where you stand and in 9th looks to have fewer more creative interpretations of the rules themselves so far hopefully. Gaming with a complete stranger can be a bit terse, with that mental reaction of a new challenger/ rival appears. Plus narrative gaming is a far more intimate tabletop experience, I would want to know the gaming group better socially before joining a crusade league/ campaign whatever. Matched play is the perfect icebreaker. 

[N1SB]

Just the inclusion of these frameworks alongside mechanics like the Action system are a real godsend for simulationist types like me. With such things baked into the core rulebook it'll be way easier to come up with custom missions and gimmicks to fit narrative, since I won't be asking people to play along with jury-rigged homebrew rules, just jury-rigged homebrew entries based on existing rules.

 

 

It's going to be criminally underplayed, just like the Chapter Approved matched play missions from the past few years and narrative game modes in general. Major influencers helping reduce the stigma against non-matched play and pushing for more narrative play would go a long way towards a larger acceptance of the other game modes.

 

These are both good points that are NOT mutually exclusive.  And to Brother Tyberos's point, it's just narrative campaigns never seem to work out.  I've seen many motivated players in my meta work to put a campaign together and they just peter out.  It's worth thinking about why to avoid that pitfall with Crusade.

 

I'm not saying I got an answer, I'm just saying it's worth diagnosing the issue.  I'm still thinking about it.  The official framework, being a common standard that I think players will find it easier to accept, makes it simpler to "sell" to people.  But I'm trying to remember the reasons why players just always burn out.

 

The one exception I can think of where players totally favoured Narrative Play over Matched Play was in the Age of Sigmar-spinoff, Warcry.  That was a special case that had less to do with the rules themselves than the influence of our local store manager who decided to position it more like a Roleplaying Game; he had a plan, it was to differentiate it slightly from both AoS and to feed the interest in RPGs that our local meta had.  Warcry had this Maelstrom of War-like random objectives card deck that Forged-A-Narrative that came with the base game.  He emphasised that mode of play so much that I assumed it was the way it was meant to be played until I saw the Matched Play rules in the rulebook.

 

I'm trying to figure out what worked so well in our meta with Warcry that we can replicate with Crusade.  I know they're different but what's good for the goose might be good for the gander.

[Xenith]

 

I'm trying to figure out what worked so well in our meta with Warcry that we can replicate with Crusade.  I know they're different but what's good for the goose might be good for the gander.

 

Get the open war cards, they seem to be quite fun also.

 

Ultimately, from what GW seem to be saying, is that Crusade works without an overarching narrative campaign - you can pick up and use your crusade army against anyone - the limitations, restrictions and story are built by you. I'm hoping for some kind of mordheim campaign style, where warbands level up, fight one another etc, but with no realy story progression, 'Mordheim' is just the setting. The open war cards also feature things for underdogs, in case your fledgeling army is fighting a much mroe experiencec/larger army.

[Wulf Vengis]

I'm looking forward to this. I'm still not entirely sure how PL works when it comes to purchasing unit upgrades/Wargear/etc. Are those types of things seriously just "free" when you build your armylist or is there a method of increasing PL for these?

[Rik Lightstar]

I'm looking forward to this. I'm still not entirely sure how PL works when it comes to purchasing unit upgrades/Wargear/etc. Are those types of things seriously just "free" when you build your armylist or is there a method of increasing PL for these?

They are "free" so to speak, or at least "already included", just like your free mobile minutes or SMS in your mobile contract.

 

For Crusade it's a great example of how PL is pretty effective. You pick your upgrades at the outset and they may be better or worse in certain games.

 

If you're up against an Ork or Guard horde then your 4 lascannon devastator squad is not as much use as 4 heavy bolters would be, encouraging people to choose flexible and varied load-outs. *except plasma which is almost always a good choice.

 

Rik

[Wulf Vengis]

That's great to know. Thank you.