Would this fix outdated codices?

[ArmyC]

This idea comes originally from my experience with Flames of War. The logic is simply that in modern warfare a General used a can opener to open a can, and a butter knife to butter his bread.

If the mission is Recon in Force, the unit is designed to have the assets to do that job. If the mission is to hold an objective, resources are allocated to support that mission.

The way we play 40k is like we have no idea who the enemy is and no clue what our mission is until we deploy. This places certain builds at a disadvantage.

5th edition's rule changes shifted the game toward mech and assault. Thus placing certain builds at a disadvantage.

What I propose is a different way to play 40k that does not change the rules, or the codices. What changes is how we determine the winner.

Rather than using objectives, or kill points to keep score, I propose mission accomplishment.

Change the FOC to support types of builds like Mech, Foot, Airborne, and hybrid. To accomplish that, place restrictions on the units in each of the five FOC slots. Such as Mech requires a 2 to 1 ratio of troops in dedicated transports to those without. Elite infantry must also adhere to this restriction. The elite, heavy and fast slots must be 2 to 1 vehiclular vs foot infantry. HQ must be at least 1 to 1, but all HQ units count, like seer counsels and honor guards.

Foot would be minimum 2 to 1 the other way. Airborne would refer to any unit that can deepstrike or is transported via a flyer or maybe a skimmer.

So once we agree on the restrictions for the lists, now we get to the missions.

The missions would be oriented toward each type of force. Foot armies cannot get to objectives as well as mech armies. So their missions would reflect the type of job they would do on the battlefield. Airborne units are designed to hit hard, but they are wasted points if they are sitting on an objective all game.

So each type of army has 12 cards that represent likely missions. Before the game, after terrain is set, 3 to 5 terrain pieces are selected in turn to be of strategic value. At that point the players randomly choose 3 of the 12 mission cards for their type of army.

The player then chooses 2 cards to play face up, and one to keep face down as a secret mission. The game runs 5 to 7 turns as usual.

The player that accomplishes the most missions wins.

Obviously the devil wil be in the details here, but the concept is what I would like feedback for.

[Lemt]

I think something like this could work. However, wouldn't it be better for each army to have a different objective? For slaughter X enemy forces, capture an objective, etc. So say there are 12 types ofobjectives in all. When you make your army list you choose 5 of those. And right before you play, you randomly select 2 of those objectives. Of course, the opponent does the same.
Or even better, the enemy picks them. Player "A" presents his list's 5 objectives to player "B", and vice-versa. "A" picks one of "B"'s objectives (that "B" will have to fulfill), then "B" picks an objective for "A".

[eagleboy7259]

So you're basically saying a Rouge Trader style competition? or something dang simular to it?

[ArmyC]

Well dang if it doesn't happen everytime I come up with an idea, some old Grandpa says, "Oh yeah sonny, I remember back in 1st edition we tried that. Never worked. Stupid idea really. Funny, how all you youngsters want to act like us game designers get paid for nuthin."

So, I'll bite. What was it in Rogue Trader that was like this, and how would that bridge the gap between codices with 10 years between copyright dates?

[HsojVvad]

Who is to say that both armies have the same objectives? First of all, not all amries are suppose to be 1000 points or 2000 points or what ever. They are never equale.

Second, while the IG or SM want to make sure the grid stays on, Tyranids don't really care, all they want to do, is consume. So for Tyrainds they would win if they can wipe the other army out. Do you really think Tyrandis care for objectives?

You can alread do this right now, the problem is, you have to plan it ahead of time and with people you know. Thing is 40K is made to play with strangers you just met. So it is very simplified.

If anything, what you have suggested is a good place to start and just improve on that.

The only thing is, you don't know what mission you are suppose to be playing (most people from what I gather refuse to make an army for KP rules so they make them for scenarios) as you said before, you can't tell the person you never met, and playing for the first time, to agree with the "restricitons" you are allowed or not.

What if this person wants a certain restriction, but you don't or the other way around? It is not so simple to do, for pick up games and cassual fun.

[Lemt]

I smell potential for a good set of house rules, maybe even, as HsojVvad hinted, with diferent objectives for each different codex!!1!

[HsojVvad]

I really like this idea. I guess this is what Planet Strike tried to do I believe. I don't have it, so I am not sure exactly what the rules do, but I know something like the Attacker gets extra Elites or FA choices while the defender gets more HS and less FA choices or some kind of combination to that effect.

[eagleboy7259]

Well dang if it doesn't happen everytime I come up with an idea, some old Grandpa says, "Oh yeah sonny, I remember back in 1st edition we tried that. Never worked. Stupid idea really. Funny, how all you youngsters want to act like us game designers get paid for nuthin."

So, I'll bite. What was it in Rogue Trader that was like this, and how would that bridge the gap between codices with 10 years between copyright dates?

LMAO man I'm 22, I got into 40k back in 3rd. I never played with vortex grenades or any of that Rouge Trader nonsense. This is more along the line of using decks, FOW and stuff to alter the game. Messing with the FOC is rough because many armies can't realistically fit those labels.

Rouge Trader style competition is a type of play that is commonly used in tournament play or league play. Basically we have a deck of objectives which vary slightly from the ones found in the 40k rule book. This style of play also varies tremendously among clubs. So for example in my last game I drew objectives, in which we had to put four in each table quarter 12" away from the sides and each other. My opponent drew killpoints. For tertiary we always have victory points.

I won objectives and killpoints so I would have won without needing the victory points (which I won anyway) If I would have won objectives and drew on killpoints I would have won. However if I won killpoints and my opponent won objectives then it would come down to victory points. In a way we are both working for our own victory conditions without specifically trying to claim our opponents.

Now you can alter that in many ways - I win my objective I get victory points, etc. You can basically do it however you want. Our deck includes: capture and control, objectives (4), salvage (4), killpoints, and i forget the other ones...

[ArmyC]

Well I might work on this in greater detail over the weekend.

The deck of 12 cards would be tailored to each army type. There would be 12 foot missions, 12 mech missions, etc. If a foot player and a mech player matched up, each would pull 3 cards from their own deck. Thus the foot player would have realistic objectives, and the mech player would have to push himself because his missions reflect mech abilities. Also there would be the secret mission. If I draw a mission that is very difficult to accomplish based on the opponent, terrain etc. I might display that one, but keep an easier mission secret. The opponent would have to guard against the missions displayed, while trying to accomplish his own missions.

I am thinking that Mech should be focused on blitzkrieg style missions, like control all objectives in the right 3rd of the table. So that forces you to push deep.

Foot armies however might have a mission to control all objectives in the near left 4th of the table. I see foot armies having defensive oriented missions.

So the battle will focus on the Foot players side that intersects with the Mech player's mission. Of course there are 4 other missions in play as well, but in that case, the Foot player has a fighting chance, because the mech player has to push forward into his lines to accomplish his mission.

[HsojVvad]

I don't like the idea of cards. That is what die rolls are for. What is next? You can by "special" cards to help you out or give buffs? Will it be like Magic, where we concentrate on cards?

I rather have the tables in the rule book and they you roll it with the dice. I just don't like bringing in "cards" to a 40K game now.

[sangrail777]

ArmyC,
I really like the idea you have come up with. I'm sure it needs some more thoughts, but if you get comfortable with the idea I do hope you post what you'd put on the cards. I'd like to make a few. Don't doubt yourself cuz wiser men couldn't find a good answer to the same question. Some thought the world was flat after all.

[L192837465]

Just put a bunch of missions from the rulebook and from the Battle Missions book in the deck, and have each player draw three. Have two identical decks of whatever number of cards.

That'd make it really interesting.

[Denzark]

What you seem to be proposing is to skew the victory conditions to better recognise those who can build a good list for a given scenario.

I confess to not understanding 100%. But if you are saying you draw missions at random you still can't build to task. If you don't draw missions at random but choose and base your army around this, you are making army selection a more crucial part - even though currently it can help you ace the opposition.

The simile of a modern general is a bit redundant - as any modern general worth his salt will only attack with 3:1 odds, but i have never seen 40K with 3:1 points ratio in any scenario outside apocalypse.

Your concern is that certain builds are at a disadvantage. This should encourage balanced army building - if you go all deathstar you may lose a shooting match - this is surely a good thing.

The disadvantage is only where you use a 'build' that whatever the mission is randomly found to be, doesn't favour it - and in this example, your opponent has either gone for balanced or his build is fit for type.

I can think of several options:

1. play a narrative game, build a list to task.
2. Just build your unbalanced list and go with it. The latest madness my mucker sprang on me was all Death Company - with no scoring units he accepted a 2/3 chance of needing to table me to win. The fun is in the challenge to yourself.
3. Use your system as a house rule - do what the hell you like! We played a couple games recently using the old score table and mission cards from the Dark Millenium 2ed, just for poos and giggles.

I must respectfully say that your system sounds amusing, after all variety is the spice and all that. But what I think you are trying to achieve is not my bag - if you want to be competitive go balanced, don't move your goalposts.

[ArmyC]

I don't like the idea of cards. That is what die rolls are for. What is next? You can by "special" cards to help you out or give buffs? Will it be like Magic, where we concentrate on cards?

I rather have the tables in the rule book and they you roll it with the dice. I just don't like bringing in "cards" to a 40K game now.

I see. Fantasy has their majic cards, which are quite helpful.

So, how would you propose the secret mission be accomplished. Maybe, the secret mission is not a good idea, but I happen to like the concept. Maybe roll for 2 which your opponent will see, then choose one secretly. But then certain missions might be abused, or there might be one that is a gimme based on the terrain set up and the opponent.

I like the cards. Maybe I can sell Gail Force Nine on the concept.....

[ArmyC]

I really like the Battle Missions book, but then again I don't like it. I have found that if you play the opponent's missions, and have the wrong build, you have no chance to win.

Specifically, I have played my successful MechEldar build at 2000 points, and have lost decisively 3 times when playing against Ork players when we rolled for their mission in the book.

That might be a bad example, but the Battle missions concept is a good start for how to think about this concept.

[HsojVvad]

I see. Fantasy has their majic cards, which are quite helpful.

So, how would you propose the secret mission be accomplished. Maybe, the secret mission is not a good idea, but I happen to like the concept. Maybe roll for 2 which your opponent will see, then choose one secretly. But then certain missions might be abused, or there might be one that is a gimme based on the terrain set up and the opponent.

I like the cards. Maybe I can sell Gail Force Nine on the concept.....

You have a good idea, just for me, I don't care for cards. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but that I don't care for the card concept. How come we can't roll dice instead of cars? Nothing wrong in you liking the concept. You asked for our opnion all I am saying is I don't care for cards. Again, I am not saying you are wrong, many people love cards.

Thing is, alot of people don't make an all comers list. They make a list they think they will meet and then complain when they get tabled. I can see the same thing happening here. Like you said, certian missions wil be abused. People will just say they want to play that misson, because I read alot of people agreeing not to play KP missions so they only play 2 out of 3 mission. Same thing could happen here as well, might be even worse since there will be a wide selection of chioices. Can you imagine, what people would do if they had to make more than 4 or 5 choices or more? People already can't make an army for just 3 choices, how would they handle doing more?

Agian, I really like your ideas, I think they are good. I just don't care for cards. I think if we have cards, then it should be a card game. Hope this makes more sense for you. :)

[Daemonette666]

I quite like the idea, but how much would armour and artillery cost - i.e. Basilisks, Collusus, LAndraiders, Lenum russ, etc? They can be very effective,and just as over deadly as a mechanised or airborne force would be sometimes?

[Lerra]

I think the core of this idea is that there is no requirement for both armies to have the same objective. Maybe the foot IG army is trying to control objectives while the Khornate daemons are just trying to kill as many people as possible. Something like this:

Win condition: Victory points.
Place 5 objectives on the table.

Player A gains victory points for destroying units or reducing them below half strength, as is described in the basic rule book.
Player B gains 400 VP for each objective he controls, and 200 VP for each objective that is contested by a scoring unit.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
If the OP was suggesting a way to focus on the narrative of the game rather than micro-managing PV efectivness, then I think I get what the proposal is....maybe:D.

I an currently working on a similar system.
Every army had a variety of 'builds'
And the 'rareness' of each unit type changes in each build type.
(Unit types are HQ,support, common, specialised , and restricted.)

For every HQ you can take up to 2 support units.
For every HQ you can take up to 6 common units
For every 2 common unit you can take 1 specialised unit.
For every 2 specialised units you can take 1 restricted unit.

EG a SM Assault Squad is 'common' in a 'Rapier' list, Specialised in a 'Vanguard' list and Restricted in an 'Anvil' list.


The UNITS are given a rough cost , based on comparative UNIT value.(The unit load out is standardised a bit , just using common sizes and equipment.)

Eg
Light infantry =1
Meduim infantry =2
Light vehicles = 2
heavy infantry=3
Medium vehicle =3
Heavy vehicle=4

This value is used to determine game size . A 20 unit game could have 20 light infantry units or 5 heavy vehicles , but usualy a mix of unit sizes....

The 'pick up game' is covered by a deck of 6 attacker missions and 6 defender missions.(36 different random games.)
Players decide who want to be the attacker ,and who wants to be the defender.

(Deployment is rolled for ,the 3 standard types,including 4 objective markers.)

The defender picks thier deployment zone first , the attacker goes first.
The attacker draws an Attackers Mission card.
The Defender draws a Defenders mission card.

Sometimes the player will get a Mission the force is totaly unsuited to,other time they will get a mission that is perfect for the force.

But in real war you dont get to pick your battles all the time , and TRUE HEROES are those that complete the mission objective against the odds ...;)

TTFN