Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

This is more complex than the system at work right now, obviously. I like the concept though, even if all the details aren't ironed out. I've always liked the idea of each army having a more specific objective for any given battle rather than a land grab or just killing each other.

As for changing the FOC, that's a different deal entirely. I don't like your idea of "1 to 1" HQ choices, since you'd end up with more Space Marine captains and Hive Tyrants than you could ever possibly deal with. I like the idea of taking different organizations to the same codex, even if it's fairly exploitable.

I like Flames of War and I think there's some ideas that would apply well to 40k. It would take some tweaking, but could definitely be fun. You should get some friends to do this with you and write up a few battle reports. Let us know how it goes!

Thanks.

The 1 to 1 idea for HQ's was simply meant to bring them in line with the rest of the army. If the army is Mech, then the Commander ought to start in a vehicle. That is all I was going for.

The reason 40k isnt like this today is its just to complicated for the average 15 year old 40k player.

ArmyC wrote:Thanks.

The 1 to 1 idea for HQ's was simply meant to bring them in line with the rest of the army. If the army is Mech, then the Commander ought to start in a vehicle. That is all I was going for.

Oh, okay. I thought you meant 1 HQ for each troops choice or what have you, which is completely ludicrous. Never mind then!

While your intial logic is correct another 'great' commander said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. (And let's not get into the context of who said that, the main point is true).

I've long thought about an idea where you bid on your mission. If you're playing 1500 you leave points unspent which you can then bid on going first or choosing the mission or such things. SO I might arrive with a smaller force of 1300 points but have the points to dominate the strategy of the game.

Thoughts?

mmmm... I like filling up every point in a list. If I find myself at 1499, I rescrutinize the whole thing.

So, leaving bid points open would make me worse of a player than I already am.

ArmyC wrote:mmmm... I like filling up every point in a list. If I find myself at 1499, I rescrutinize the whole thing.

So, leaving bid points open would make me worse of a player than I already am.

I think I'll write it up for the proposed rules forum. It would add quite a bit of psychology and bluffng to the game and add a whole new dimension to list building beyond whihc units are most effective.

Sure 1350 points vs 1500 is laughable but if I told you you would almost always got to pick the mission, deployment and go first?

Playtesting more than twice and releasing a VERY steady FAQ schedule (that goes far enough to actually improve,nerf and recost units) would make end a lot of the whining/brokedness