ThePenitentOne

Named: Kheradruahk, Urien, Sliscuss, Sathonyx and Vect. Uriah Jacobus, Inquisitor Karamazov, Eisenhorn, Hector Rex, Confessor Kyrinov. Doomrider Karandras Generic: A dedicated Ynarri Archon and Succubus who can actually be a Ynarri Warlord. Wraithseer Adeptus Arbites Judge or Marshal Imperial Navy Admiral Jokaero, Daemonhost

Maybe, but because GW cancelled costed equipment, you can't make a unit than can take EITHER bolters or meltas because assuming equal points, who is gonna take bolters? It's possible we'll see mixed equipment marines in Gravis, Tacticus and Phobos armour. I'd be a bit sad for Deathwatch, because that's basically Indomitor, Fortis and Spectrus Kill teams, and it would suck for them to lose one of the things that makes them unique... But now that Firstborn are gone, Marines need something to fill the mixed equipment void.

In the early days of Crusade, I had debated about whether or not it would have been better for GW to have a "Big Book of Crusade" rather than making every book include some Crusade content. Both systems DO have advantages (assuming GW gets it right). One of the things that could have been a benefit of putting it all in one book would be to harmonize some of the bespoke content in dexes- for example, Tau, GSC and Nids all have planetary conquest mechanics... But the planet types available differ from book to book... So if you want Nids and Tau to fight over the same planet, each racing to devour/ assimilate it first, you have to convert planet types... So the Tau have a planet type called "Military Base" but that doesn't appear in the Nid book. I actually generated a list in 9th ed that made it easier- it's in the rules section of the Crusade Club. But my concern is that GW would over simplify- so if the books as is provide 9/ 7/ 5 planet types respectively, with a total of say 11 unique types... Putting it all in the same book would probably make GW reduce it down to 5 or 7 unique planet types useable by every dex- simplifying and wrecking everything the way they always do because modern gamer brains have been destroyed by micro-text comminications and Tik-Tok videos so that anything more than 10 bullet points is too much "cognitive load." (Note: Last sentence spoken in the voice of Grumpy Old Man in Lawnchair screaming at teenagers to get off his lawn.)

I like to use the system generation rules in the Tau dex to create my star systems. I make my rolls one at a time starting with the first planet/fleet/ military base from the sun and working my way to the fringe of the sector. Once that's done, I create continents for every planet. Then I create STC settlements- usually an array of 5 x 5 territories. Then we seed the player armies- always using a combination of choice/ randomness. So for example, if there's a mining world, Votann are probably going to want to be there... But they may have to randomly determine which continent and settlement they start with, and then pick the territory in that settlement best fits their needs. You can attack any territory in the same settlement. You split your force to hold territory, but any force in the settlement can be a part of an attacking or defending army. You can reinforce a neighbouring settlement, but only if you have adequeate transport capacity or jump troops/ teleportation. To reinforce a settlement on another continent, you need flyers. In order to get from one planet to another, you need voidcraft, and it can't be done as a reinforcement- you move from one planet to another in a campaign turn before/ after the battle. I've also explored persistent battlefields linked to territories... But it's a lot of book keeping. It was neat though, because you build aver battlefield as an onslaught sized table, and if the game you're playing is less than onslaught size, you pich the portion of the onslaught sized table you want to use. This allows for "rooling battles" on the same field. So for example in battle one, if the attackers push defenders back, the second battle in that game can use the other side of the onslaught board- which didn't feature in the first game. You can also track terrain battle damage if you're going all in on hardcore book keeping and you use DIY terrain. Boarding action rules also allow you to deal with interiors on a battlefield. So you could have two bastions on a 45" x 45" board, but each represents an entrance to an underground bunker, which is represeted by its own Boarding Action board. So you play on the 40k table, but have the option of putting BA units into the bunkers to fight BA games... But doing so puts you at a disadvantage on the 40k table. If you do this, do it sparingly- like at most, one battlefield per continent has an interiror terrain feature- compound games take a long time to play, and the book keeping becomes insane. In my campaign, I didn't even have an interior on every planet.

That's weird to me. If NONE of the existing 10e detachments are 3 points, that's serious power creep for every army in the game. I had assumed MOST would be 3 points, with only the under performers coming in at 2.

Love the Abhuman detachment for Guard. Also intrigued by persistent battleshock- adds teeth to fear-based units and detachments.

Personally, I think the "Firing deck" rules themselves weren't well written. What firing deck is supposed to mean is that folks shoot their personal weapons from firing points. The way the rule is written? A number of personal weapons belonging to embarked units = to the firingdeck number BECOME VEHICLE weapons. It's ridiculous, but they did it that way in order to be consistent with "Units embarked in a vehicle don't count as being on the table and can't do ANYTHING"... Which was a poorly written rule itself. It would have been preferable to define what units can and can't do from vehicles rather cop out with "They can't do anything" Also, open-topped was more elegant than firing deck because it INLUDED firing deck (without somehow making person guns into vehicle guns), but it included other actions for embarked troops that were also permitted by the rule. One of my big bugbears for rules writing has been "... the unit may use this rule. If it does...." This is just stupid. OF COURSE the unit can use the rule! If it couldn't, the rule wouldn't be on the datacard! Just tell me what it does! It's a little thing, but it appers in SO many of their rules, and it's completely unneccessary.

Thanks to all the folks who posted here. I will be processing a lot of things over the next few months to figure out the path forward. I have to see how many folks will be interested in helping me keep Crusade alive locally. Like I said, some of the lighter narrative rules that they're adding to the core game might be enough for people to just go with the new system because it's the path of least resistance. If too many make that call and I no longer have enough folks to play older editions or to carry house-ruled Crusade forward... Well, there might not be enough pieces to pick up.

Hey folks. Thought I'd start a "Celebration of Life" thread for Crusade. I knew the writing was on the wall as soon as they announced the edition with talk of bringing narrative to regular play, so I'm not surprised. And this isn't necessarily intended to be an angry post. I'm not sure what to do now. I've played since '89 with a break for 6th and 7th. Along the way, I found a way to enjoy every edition... Using whatever narrative tid-bits they gave us. Half baked non-committal skills I could add to a character or whatever. Proto versions of Kill Team and Combat Patrol, and the concept of escalation. Campaign systems for Plant Strike and Cityfight. It was all fun.., but I almost always had to supplement it with house rules, because it never had the depth to go as far as I needed it to. But the six years I had Crusade? Those were the only years that I didn't have to fill in the blanks myself. That was apex gaming for me. I wish I had played more often and made more of it. I wish GW had given me a Drukhari refresh in an addition that supported Drukharimunda. The grotesques will be beautiful when we get them, but they'll never have a territory in Commorragh just for them, because everything has to be simple now. People don't like rules anymore- that's too complicated. Just say the have a territory, right? It doesn't have to actually mean anything, right? They're still your dudes. I don't know what comes next. Crucible and the new Tank Rules are okay. The campaign stuff in this box looks okay. I might try to enjoy the baseline mediocrity of another non-committal progression system if the models are good enough. I'm not sure it'll satisfy, but I might try, It might also be the end. Even if I try it and squeeze some narrative fun out of it, I don't think I'll forget what I've lost... And even if I don't stop supporting GW by making occasional purchases, I don't think I'll forgive. Anyway, pour one out for Crusade Fraters! If you have fond memories, this is the place for them. If you want to join me in shaking my fist at the sky in a futile gesture, you can do that too, And if the thread dies without ever being more than my own personal pity party, that's fine too.

That is exactly my fear. I like Crucible; I think I'd like Armoured Gaunlet. But neither can replace the amazing Drukharimunda rules, or the fabulous GSC rebellion, Tau assimilation, Tyranid devouring or Sororitas sin and Repentence rules that Crusade gave us. The lack of respect GW showed for KT21's progression system does not fill me with confidence. Hopefully tomorrow's reveal tells us one way or another the fate of Crusade.

As I've said before, I do think that's a way forward that allows GW to fill the Firstborn Tactical void using formerly "Primaris" models... My only issue is that then the Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Deathwatch Teams basically become available to all Marine players, eroding the distinctiveness of Deathwatch Kill Teams. If they have to do it to save the game, I suppose I get it... I just really like DW Kill Teams.

Even more if someone does a shirtless cavalry conversion.

Due to the forward compatibility of Codices, we'll be able to let Crusade, Crucible and Armoured Gauntlet carry on for 11th even if GW doesn't officially support them... But I'm not sure how much of that I'll be doing if they are winding down Crusade. My shop had a summer Crusade league planned, and I'm not sure it'll run if there's no "official" support, so we'll have to see.

Hopefully, since they'll have to talk at least a bit about the rulebook in the box, they'll finally confirm for us whether or not Crusade will survive. It's literally the only thing I care about until either Sisters, Drukhari, Aeldari or GSC come. I'm not a big enough fan of Marines or Orks to be terribly excited for this... But if I learn the fate of Crusade, that goes a long way to determining my level of engagement with this edition.

It actually doesn't matter to me personally one way or the other, as I like Tacticus, Gravis and Phobos armour, and the only marines I ever play are Deathwatch and Greyknights. DW allows me to mix options in Primaris units- I have to take 5 regular bolt throwing Intercessors in a Fortis team, but the other five can be made up of Plasma, Flamer or Assault dudes. In Gravis, I need five Heavy Intercessors, but the remainder can be a combination of Aggressors and Eradicators. GW has already announced that the new Primaris Marines will have design cues from Firstborn; it's true that the only example we've seen so far was mostly just a headswap, but the other models might have more Firstborn bits- we'll see on Friday I guess. I'm mostly just trying to assuage the fears of the die-hard first born fans.