• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

The GREAT 40k thread

Killer Angel said:
Tnx, we are working to have beautiful tables, at least for narrative games. I'm tired of wtc tables with standardized cardbox buildings, every game a city battle with just 2 kind of sceneries (including containers) :meh:
Click to expand...

I tried switching up terrain, even reminded the new guys that we used to have tables with trees and rock formations. I was told that if they wanted that they would play fantasy. Fortunately the older players remembered that and got nostalgic for 2nd edition terrain. GW really changed how people look at the game with their obsession of only using GW terrain. Don't get me wrong I love Cityfight games but if we aren't using those rules please switch up the terrain as not every battle has to be in a city.
 
BrotherSutek said:
I tried switching up terrain, even reminded the new guys that we used to have tables with trees and rock formations. I was told that if they wanted that they would play fantasy. Fortunately the older players remembered that and got nostalgic for 2nd edition terrain. GW really changed how people look at the game with their obsession of only using GW terrain. Don't get me wrong I love Cityfight games but if we aren't using those rules please switch up the terrain as not every battle has to be in a city.
Click to expand...

This. Also, I am sick of every city I see being half destroyed and borderline ruins. I want to see urban warfare where the city has not yet been blown to buggery.

Give me tank columns in a city street, surrounded by buildings that haven't yet seen the battle to come, high resident buildings that look good while also providing a nest for any optimistic snipers.

I get that a city of undamaged buildings don't match the 40k vibe, where everything is from and in ruins, or getting there. But seriously? Narratively this is the first battle this planet is about to see and already the city is more rubble then not?

Nah man, nothing looks nicer than having the early start to the war being in unblemished cities. Bonus points if you actually have damaged and undamaged pieces for each building. Then you can add some dynamic moments where you literally blast a building yourself, prompting the building to be replaced with its damaged version.

I wish I could fight on such a table.
 
J.Logan said:
This. Also, I am sick of every city I see being half destroyed and borderline ruins. I want to see urban warfare where the city has not yet been blown to buggery.

Give me tank columns in a city street, surrounded by buildings that haven't yet seen the battle to come, high resident buildings that look good while also providing a nest for any optimistic snipers.

I get that a city of undamaged buildings don't match the 40k vibe, where everything is from and in ruins, or getting there. But seriously? Narratively this is the first battle this planet is about to see and already the city is more rubble then not?

Nah man, nothing looks nicer than having the early start to the war being in unblemished cities. Bonus points if you actually have damaged and undamaged pieces for each building. Then you can add some dynamic moments where you literally blast a building yourself, prompting the building to be replaced with its damaged version.

I wish I could fight on such a table.
Click to expand...
I loved playing the first Cityfight set of rules, sneak around a city that hadn't been destroyed yet and some weapon choices are better than they usually are. Heck I loved kill team for the same. Ironically I played IG both times! I try to get to new players before they get too entrenched in the game so they can learn how to enjoy it without being brainwashed into destroyed cities and that's all. I've had limited success as I'm not able to play as much as I want and the new era players are mostly unimaginative in my area. Great people, just most games feel like practice for a tourney.
 
BrotherSutek said:
just most games feel like practice for a tourney.
Click to expand...

Eyuch.

That attitude is why I haven't finished my Tau army yet. I want to play narrative campaigns, games for fun without mucking about with "optimised lists".

I want scenarios, like a 40k recreation of the battle for the Pegasus Bridge, where the narrative is that it makes the best route for the planetary invaders to move deeper into enemy territory. So the aim of the battle is the planets defenders are on an offensive aiming to destroy the bridge and allow the advance. Why the invaders seem to be limited to ground travel? Stupid amounts of AA defences preventing air based deployment.

I was really put off when I suggested such a scenario, and the one I was talking to just turned around and said "so the attacking force just deepstrikes and destroys the bridge in round 2". I suggested due to interference or static defences, deepstrikes are not permitted that mission or are limited only to the opposite side of the board. The reaction was "so completely invalidating my army's strategy. No thanks".

Like wow, thanks dude, I try to come up with a creative scenario and because you can't use your optimised strategy you just brush me off. Great. Thanks. Whatever.

I'll admit that I was watching some of MiniWarGaming's narrative campaigns at the time and was really inspired by the creativity on display, with custom rules for certain scenarios and the narrative being influenced not just by who won but certain events within the battle - a defence of a cruiser where the Imperium player kept deliberately blowing holes in the bulkhead to flush away the orks being a standout in my head. The Imperium win the defence, but did so much damage that the cruiser crashed, denying orbital strikes for the rest of the campaign.
 
J.Logan said:
Eyuch.

That attitude is why I haven't finished my Tau army yet. I want to play narrative campaigns, games for fun without mucking about with "optimised lists".

I want scenarios, like a 40k recreation of the battle for the Pegasus Bridge, where the narrative is that it makes the best route for the planetary invaders to move deeper into enemy territory. So the aim of the battle is the planets defenders are on an offensive aiming to destroy the bridge and allow the advance. Why the invaders seem to be limited to ground travel? Stupid amounts of AA defences preventing air based deployment.

I was really put off when I suggested such a scenario, and the one I was talking to just turned around and said "so the attacking force just deepstrikes and destroys the bridge in round 2". I suggested due to interference or static defences, deepstrikes are not permitted that mission or are limited only to the opposite side of the board. The reaction was "so completely invalidating my army's strategy. No thanks".

Like wow, thanks dude, I try to come up with a creative scenario and because you can't use your optimised strategy you just brush me off. Great. Thanks. Whatever.

I'll admit that I was watching some of MiniWarGaming's narrative campaigns at the time and was really inspired by the creativity on display, with custom rules for certain scenarios and the narrative being influenced not just by who won but certain events within the battle - a defence of a cruiser where the Imperium player kept deliberately blowing holes in the bulkhead to flush away the orks being a standout in my head. The Imperium win the defence, but did so much damage that the cruiser crashed, denying orbital strikes for the rest of the campaign.
Click to expand...
It's weird to me that the game has become this way but then again I don't care for the current edition either. We've been playing 7th edition with very limited detachments and its been great. Life is busy, working double shifts and family, so I don't have much time for gaming. When I do get a chance I seldom want to play random people anymore, the netlist optimization mentality is not for me. Building terrain and playing a scenario such as what you described sounds much more fun.
 
BrotherSutek said:
It's weird to me that the game has become this way but then again I don't care for the current edition either. We've been playing 7th edition with very limited detachments and its been great.
Click to expand...

i LOVE the rules of 10th edition.
It's the current mindset of "how to play the game" that i have issues with.
 
BrotherSutek said:
I've had limited success as I'm not able to play as much as I want and the new era players are mostly unimaginative in my area. Great people, just most games feel like practice for a tourney.
Click to expand...

J.Logan said:
Eyuch.

That attitude is why I haven't finished my Tau army yet. I want to play narrative campaigns, games for fun without mucking about with "optimised lists".

I want scenarios, like a 40k recreation of the battle for the Pegasus Bridge, where the narrative is that it makes the best route for the planetary invaders to move deeper into enemy territory. So the aim of the battle is the planets defenders are on an offensive aiming to destroy the bridge and allow the advance. Why the invaders seem to be limited to ground travel? Stupid amounts of AA defences preventing air based deployment.

I was really put off when I suggested such a scenario, and the one I was talking to just turned around and said "so the attacking force just deepstrikes and destroys the bridge in round 2". I suggested due to interference or static defences, deepstrikes are not permitted that mission or are limited only to the opposite side of the board. The reaction was "so completely invalidating my army's strategy. No thanks".

Like wow, thanks dude, I try to come up with a creative scenario and because you can't use your optimised strategy you just brush me off. Great. Thanks. Whatever.
Click to expand...

BrotherSutek said:
It's weird to me that the game has become this way but then again I don't care for the current edition either. We've been playing 7th edition with very limited detachments and its been great. Life is busy, working double shifts and family, so I don't have much time for gaming. When I do get a chance I seldom want to play random people anymore, the netlist optimization mentality is not for me. Building terrain and playing a scenario such as what you described sounds much more fun.
Click to expand...

Killer Angel said:
i LOVE the rules of 10th edition.
It's the current mindset of "how to play the game" that i have issues with.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that the new Editions of 40K are all the more gamey now.

I mean, 40K has always had its gamey players as per many other wargames, but the focus of these latest Editions seems purely to be the meta, despite GW's attempts at the 'Three Ways to Play' system.

Personally I'm happy sticking with 5th and 6th :smug:. No BS from Imperial/Chaos Knights, Apocalypse was there for those that really wanted to bring massive units into games, and those who keep up the old Editions (such as this bunch of legends) generally seem to be more oriented around fun and friendly games anyway, now that the meta-chasing crowd continue to follow the neverending cycle of newer Editions.
 
pyro-dragon said:
I was a bit thrown to discover that 500pts is not really supported these days.
Click to expand...

Yea, for smaller-scale battles they really want you to use the Kill Team ruleset. My issue with Kill Team - at least when I last looked at it - was that it was different enough in rules from standard 40K, that it didn't feel like a gateway to the bigger battles. What I wanted was 40k rules but with only the barest of alterations to fit for skirmishes, yes there will be differences, but also enough similarity that somebody who got into 40k through Kill Team could make the transition to standard 40k without issue once they had built up the army numbers.

I dunno, we had Shadow War: Armageddon back in 7th edition for Skirmish with RPG elements (or Necromunda but with core 40k factions), so I'd have preferred Kill Team be strictly "40k but on a squad-skirmish level" which could have functioned as easing people into the larger battles of standard.

Maybe I'm misremembering though, or maybe the rules have changed since I was last looking at them. I'll be honest, either is a very likely possibility with me.
 
J.Logan said:
I dunno, we had Shadow War: Armageddon back in 7th edition for Skirmish with RPG elements (or Necromunda but with core 40k factions), so I'd have preferred Kill Team be strictly "40k but on a squad-skirmish level" which could have functioned as easing people into the larger battles of standard.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough Kill Team in 5th Edition 40K was a mission specifically designed for small-scale (200 points usually) games of standard 40K, in the old Battle Missions book...

71-Hstvn15L._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg



And I still have Shadow War Armageddon... a great way to bring the original Necromunda rules back and revitalise them for 40K, and much better than the current Kill Team games in my view - thematic without being bureaucratic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top