Thoughts on the 9th ed Crusade rules

[ThePenitentOne]

I appreciate that, but hopefully future expansions will go down the route of the Tempus Fugitives and have you build 300 PL army lists with no room for additions, only replacements, and then you select from the list as now to better show a full functioning crusade army on a campaign and not just an army over time.

 

Don’t get me wrong, Crusade is great, but I don’t wanna spend six months getting to 150 PL where I normally play. Also there’s a bit of confusion between open and narrative play with open play being more like traditional narrative and now narrative is just escalation league.

 

 

Or, even better, you build you army around detachments with each detachment gaining a detachment experience bonus too. So you’ve got like a guard platoon patrol detachment that performs well and become more elite over time, instead of just individual squads.

 

Both of these ideas are cool variations on the Crusade system. Regarding the detachment idea, I will be using something like this approach. Our campaign is map based, and you have to occupy territory to control it, so each army will have a detachment stationed in every settlement where that army has a presence. We're tracking some of these detachments as individual Crusades; they can ally with detachments from other settlements to form large armies when necessary, but more often, they fight as individual Crusades.

[BluejayJunior]

There are lots of ways to help them grow faster for your group. Either having them grow at set intervals or increasing the amount your PL goes up per RP. 

The system is meant to be something you can play with solo or with a group. You can fit it into a narrative campaign that runs for a set time. Or you can just have different individuals growing their crusade on their own, playing against anyone who wants a game. 

[Cheex]

My main concern is the length of time it will take to grow into 2000 point sized armies. If you can only get in one game a month, you’re looking at several months to hit the 200 PL mark, assuming you suicide RP into more power levels. I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be wise to double to the PL you get for devoting RP into expanding the army, or maybe even starting at 100 PL.

 

A fair concern, one that I would have had a year ago before I met my current gaming group. It would take an absolute minimum of three battles to reach 2000pts/100PL, assuming you exclusively played the Supply Drop mission and spent all but one of your RPs on reinforcements.

 

The counter to that would be to stop thinking of 2000pts/100PL as being "the" standard way to play and focus more on the story you're trying to make. If you're playing a Crusade, expect to play 50-75PL more often than not - and it's actually (potentially) a lot of fun. Especially once you start racking up Battle Honours and Scars, the smaller games will make it easier to keep track of everything.

 

That said, I wouldn't be against a simple house rule: you can play games using units that are not on your Order of Battle, but only those units on your OOB can gain experience, Battle Scars, or any benefits from the Crusade missions. So, play those 2000pt/100PL games, but only the units on your 50PL OOB actually get benefits.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

 

 

That said, I wouldn't be against a simple house rule: you can play games using units that are not on your Order of Battle, but only those units on your OOB can gain experience, Battle Scars, or any benefits from the Crusade missions. So, play those 2000pt/100PL games, but only the units on your 50PL OOB actually get benefits.

 

 

That is a really cool solution. This thread has given me some really cool ideas.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

My local group has decided to go with points instead of PL, I thought they might, as the group has always been pretty points obsessed. I'm already seeing the key advantage of PL however, it's much easier to split an OOB down into smaller contingents when you're working with round numbers.

[BluejayJunior]

My local group has decided to go with points instead of PL, I thought they might, as the group has always been pretty points obsessed. I'm already seeing the key advantage of PL however, it's much easier to split an OOB down into smaller contingents when you're working with round numbers.

Someone else has suggested (it might have been earlier in this thread) to use PL to make your Order of Battle, but play the games with points. It keeps the Crusade building part simple, while still letting the group use points. Of course you can also just change the 5PL/RP to points as well. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The 5RP has become 100 points. (Although, I found with testing that 50PL is often closer to 1100 points with upgrades)

 

I think the other way around would be easier, but I'll go along with it. It just won't tesselate as nicely as I think PL would.

[BitsHammer]

Honestly, since you're locked in pretty hard with how PL and Crusade marry up, I feel like it works fine. You don't need to constantly adjust your army list, but since we're still waiting for PL to catch up with points I can understand the frustration.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I did too. I just think this is over complicating something which doesn't need the rigour of points. The risk reward balance comes from the fact yes, you can upgrade your squads freely, but once chosen, they're locked in.

[Vermintide]

So, having actually had my hands on the book since my last remarks in this thread, I think it's safe to say these rules are fairly solid. It's not quite as in depth as they perhaps could have made it, but it's still much more akin to a serious role-playing framework than any edition since RT (that I can think of, anyway.)

 

The rules also flat out you can choose wether you roll or pick the options without rolling; and you can only pick one of each per unit if I'm reading it right. So, there's not too much need to worry about powergaming, because people can only really choose the optimal "build" for each unit, and even then they have to level it up still. A bit like a game such as X-Com, where you're going to pick the same options each time on your Heavy guy, but he's still your only Rank 5 Heavy guy, and he matters just as much for it.

 

...Oh boy. Who's up for a Iron-man Mode Crusade campaign?

 

Also, regarding the low starting Power Level limit, I think that's kind of intended. You're either a new player, and playing against mostly other new players kicking off their Crusade, or you're a veteran player, playing against newer players, or a veteran player playing against another veteran. But the most common outcome of those combinations is going to be a smaller game with someone who has a smaller supply limit. Hence focussing the game on smaller, more narratively driven battles; where the big epic ones come as a climactic part of a long running campaign.

 

Just need a group to play with now, because this looks seriously cool -_-

Edited July 30, 2020 by Vermintide

[Noserenda]

I think the main problem with switching between PL and points is where those vary, you may not be able to cleanly build 1000 points with your 50 PL due to whatever options you have taken. That does depend rather a lot on your army choice though i guess :) 

[Marshal Rohr]

I’m fully expecting the Crusade system to start getting its own expansions like psychic awakening. Maybe in Chapter Approved every year.

[BluejayJunior]

I’m fully expecting the Crusade system to start getting its own expansions like psychic awakening. Maybe in Chapter Approved every year.

They did say that new codexes would have new options for Crusade for that faction. I'd like to see other expansions on it as well. 

[Brother Bahram]

Is there anybody outthere willing to share how they have done a system with points instead of power level?

[Cheex]

So, I've now managed to play three Crusade games and am still completely enamoured by it. Even though I've felt outmatched every time (Chaos, so yeah), the great thing about it is that I've always felt like there's something to gun for. You are actively incentivised to celebrate the little wins: kill a unit, achieve another Agenda, etc.

 

Winning the battle almost seems secondary to this. Even in games where I haven't won, I've still had the unexpected fun of levelling up my units. Or if they haven't levelled up, they get so close that you look forward to the next game to try and get those extra couple of XP you need.

 

For this reason, I encourage even the most Matched Play-minded groups to try it out with PL for a few games. It's not about creating a perfectly even game experience; it's about telling the story of your characters, sergeants, etc.

[Brother Bahram]

So, I've now managed to play three Crusade games and am still completely enamoured by it. Even though I've felt outmatched every time (Chaos, so yeah), the great thing about it is that I've always felt like there's something to gun for. You are actively incentivised to celebrate the little wins: kill a unit, achieve another Agenda, etc.

 

Winning the battle almost seems secondary to this. Even in games where I haven't won, I've still had the unexpected fun of levelling up my units. Or if they haven't levelled up, they get so close that you look forward to the next game to try and get those extra couple of XP you need.

 

For this reason, I encourage even the most Matched Play-minded groups to try it out with PL for a few games. It's not about creating a perfectly even game experience; it's about telling the story of your characters, sergeants, etc.

I’ll will talk with my gaming group

[Kastor Krieg]

Winning the battle almost seems secondary to this. Even in games where I haven't won, I've still had the unexpected fun of levelling up my units. Or if they haven't levelled up, they get so close that you look forward to the next game to try and get those extra couple of XP you need.

That totally sounds like Call of Duty weapon / upgrade / loot unlocks on experience progress scale. And that IS a fun reward system.

[RandyB]

I have been interested in the Crusade rules ever since they were announced. This recent discussion has only whetted my appetite. Will give them a try!

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

So, I've now managed to play three Crusade games and am still completely enamoured by it. Even though I've felt outmatched every time (Chaos, so yeah), the great thing about it is that I've always felt like there's something to gun for. You are actively incentivised to celebrate the little wins: kill a unit, achieve another Agenda, etc.

 

Winning the battle almost seems secondary to this. Even in games where I haven't won, I've still had the unexpected fun of levelling up my units. Or if they haven't levelled up, they get so close that you look forward to the next game to try and get those extra couple of XP you need.

 

For this reason, I encourage even the most Matched Play-minded groups to try it out with PL for a few games. It's not about creating a perfectly even game experience; it's about telling the story of your characters, sergeants, etc.

Glad you like it. What you've described sounds awesome. To be honest, leveling up my guys does seem like it will be just as fun as winning. Already planning several Crusades, BA one I've got a 50pl Order of Battle worked out for, a BL/DG/CK army with some Daemons thrown in and I want to revisit my DA with Crusade system. That's just to start. I want to build a couple of Xenos armies using the Crusade system. Either Saim Haan and Evil Sunz, or Saim Haan and Mephrit Dynasty using some of the Newcrons.

[chapter master 454]

Remember folks, it isn't hard and fast rules that you must follow to the letter but more follow the spirit. You can alter how it works. Maybe you up the starting PL allowance (or points if you modified for that) but in it's place all units must belong to a detachment, though doesn't stop a unit transferring or adding to ether detachment.

 

This rule-set is fun because I see it as things like Necromunda but with actual 40k which is cool. Personally I hope they do add a map system, akin to what dawn of war dark crusade had. Would open up the possibilities of players being allowed to spent RP on territories to increase their PL allowance for more fortifications that they would get for free in the area whenever fighting there (thus allowing a player to only need to garrison smaller forces in such regions, like how you would expect!)

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

I hope they expand further on the campaign system, maybe with a supplemental book that adds campaign maps and new missions. It doesn’t have to be entirely separate from Crusade either, if I’ve got a seasoned Crusade army I can use them in the campaign, while players B and C could use the new campaign we start to launch their Crusade and players D and F might only take part in the campaign for duration, coming from matched play and returning to matched upon completion. The campaign system could have ways to expand upon the system that already exists that allows Crusade players to play against those players who play single pickup games.

[RandyB]

Remember folks, it isn't hard and fast rules that you must follow to the letter but more follow the spirit. You can alter how it works. Maybe you up the starting PL allowance (or points if you modified for that) but in it's place all units must belong to a detachment, though doesn't stop a unit transferring or adding to ether detachment.

 

This rule-set is fun because I see it as things like Necromunda but with actual 40k which is cool. Personally I hope they do add a map system, akin to what dawn of war dark crusade had. Would open up the possibilities of players being allowed to spent RP on territories to increase their PL allowance for more fortifications that they would get for free in the area whenever fighting there (thus allowing a player to only need to garrison smaller forces in such regions, like how you would expect!)

The last thing I expect is support for any kind of map-based campaign in 40K. I deeply hope that I am wrong.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

Remember folks, it isn't hard and fast rules that you must follow to the letter but more follow the spirit. You can alter how it works. Maybe you up the starting PL allowance (or points if you modified for that) but in it's place all units must belong to a detachment, though doesn't stop a unit transferring or adding to ether detachment.

 

This rule-set is fun because I see it as things like Necromunda but with actual 40k which is cool. Personally I hope they do add a map system, akin to what dawn of war dark crusade had. Would open up the possibilities of players being allowed to spent RP on territories to increase their PL allowance for more fortifications that they would get for free in the area whenever fighting there (thus allowing a player to only need to garrison smaller forces in such regions, like how you would expect!)

The last thing I expect is support for any kind of map-based campaign in 40K. I deeply hope that I am wrong.

 

 

If you can find a copy of Urban Conquest (see if you can get just the book for cheap on ebay), the Streets of Death map based system works with minor modifications. If they were to reboot that product purpose built for Crusade, it would kick butt!

 

Don't invest too much though- the Cities of Death rules that make up the rest of the book have been replaced with 40k terrain rules, so it's not as good as it was in its prime.

[RandyB]

 

 

 

Remember folks, it isn't hard and fast rules that you must follow to the letter but more follow the spirit. You can alter how it works. Maybe you up the starting PL allowance (or points if you modified for that) but in it's place all units must belong to a detachment, though doesn't stop a unit transferring or adding to ether detachment.

 

This rule-set is fun because I see it as things like Necromunda but with actual 40k which is cool. Personally I hope they do add a map system, akin to what dawn of war dark crusade had. Would open up the possibilities of players being allowed to spent RP on territories to increase their PL allowance for more fortifications that they would get for free in the area whenever fighting there (thus allowing a player to only need to garrison smaller forces in such regions, like how you would expect!)

The last thing I expect is support for any kind of map-based campaign in 40K. I deeply hope that I am wrong.

If you can find a copy of Urban Conquest (see if you can get just the book for cheap on ebay), the Streets of Death map based system works with minor modifications. If they were to reboot that product purpose built for Crusade, it would kick butt!

 

Sounds like it would!

[Alcyon]

Is there anybody outthere willing to share how they have done a system with points instead of power level?

 

I'm co-running a crusade campaign with my gaming group, I think we have something like 14 players now. It's basically a league. We're doing 1k pts orders of battle to start and playing an escalation series, the Combat Patrol missions at 500pts, then 3 Incursions at 750pts, then the other 3 Incursions at 1k, then 3 Strike Force missions at 1500 and the final 3 at 2k. 1 PL = 100pts so you potentially could have a 3k OoB by the end if you didn't spend your RP on anything else. 

 

One hiccup is it's tough with Primaris to squeeze in units if you can't alter the sizes of squads, since they have so few options. So one thing we've implemented is you can run units below the size you paid for in your OoB as long as they aren't below minimum strength, i.e. if you have a 10-man Intercessor Squad in your OoB, you can run it as a 5 or 7-man squad in a game list and it will still gain experience as normal.

 

Some other weird quirks have come up, I'll share any I think of and happy to field any questions people have.