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.

In my group 40K was always played. "You build your army, I build mine and (unless we are playing a tournament) we design our armies to specifically beat our opponent. . ."

This system is the status quo and results in games that can be very enjoyable, but it is this system that ties us so tightly to the rules.  Us vs. another player and the only thing balancing the game is the poorly written set of "rules".  If gamers stepped away from this model and tried something different. 40K could become more enjoyable. . .

Backstory:  Our club was originally just 40K.  We expanded and took on new members who had NEVER played 40K or any GW product. They introduced many different game systems and also the idea of a person running a scenario of their own design.  These homemade scenarios were seldom "balanced" affairs, hugely outnumbered troops being besieged by hordes of enemies. . . but the goals were defined and each side had a chance to "win".   The designer often GM'ed the affair and supplied both armies (models and lists). . . club members just chose up sides and started rolling dice. . .  arguments were settled by the game master and people enjoyed themselves immensely!

Idea: Apply this type of scenario based game to 40K.  One person designs the scenario, board, special rules  and both force organization charts.  That person can GM the game (cutting down on rule disputes.  . .) or play on a side.  The result is (hopefully) something more enjoyable than gear everything up and pummel each other.  How would it fly with your group if you wanted to make up a rule that allowed tryanids to be placed in a predetermined structure (hidden!) and crawl out of hiding and begin attacking on the turn they appear? In a regular game your opponent would probably tell you to go pound salt, but if the GM designed the scenario where this would balance things. . .  it might be fun.  I've done just such a thing and am testing it this upcoming Saturday. . .  Tyranids overrunning the world.  Doomed Guardsmen tasked with a last ditch mission by an ancient Inquisitor Lord. . .

Pictures, rules and results to follow. . .


Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

Losing badly in a fun, imaginative, and fluffy scenario can be a lot of fun.

Leaving aside the implications scenario-driven games raise for those who worship RAW uber alles, if you haven't played that sort of game are missing a great part of the hobby...

Have fun with the scenario-based games!  They seem to be a dying part of the hobby, at least as reflected in the on-line communities.

Vale,

JohnS

Scenarios are great.

They can be designed out of your head, or you can take a historical battle as a model and rename all the forces and locations to disguise it.

Posted By cygnnus on 06/09/2007 7:56 PM

Have fun with the scenario-based games!  They seem to be a dying part of the hobby, at least as reflected in the on-line communities.

Why does this aspect of the game go unnoticed? Why doesn't GW encourage this as a viable part of the hobby?  I think it makes for a more enjoyable game where people can let go of the silly rules arguments and really enjoy some good models and the excellent backstory that is 40K (which I believe are the best two parts of GW's 40K line). . .


Kilkrazy- - -"They can be designed out of your head, or you can take a historical battle as a model and rename all the forces and locations to disguise it."

Zulu at Roarke's drift anyone? I have the Praetorians if someone has some Orks!


Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

   I shudder to find myself defending GW but...

They DO make a point of supporting this type of game. Two years ago (granted I haven't been back in a long time) the GW "Battle Bunker" in Glen Burnie, MD, US, held a huuuuge scenario game involving multiple tables, "factions," VDR/Forgeworld rules, and an excellently thought-out rules and mission.

   The battle involved (if I remember correctly) 80000 points of different armies. There were two main tables, each the length of 6 4'x6' tables put end-to-end (so 36'). There were players directing multiple detatchments (occupying up to three boards with their forces), there were Warhound Titans and Flyers abound, and Basilisks launched indirect fire shells between tables! Each of these two main tables had a couple of specific objectives that, when held for a certain time by either side, would do bad things to the enemy or good things for them. Additionally, there were four separate single 4x6 tables of different terrain types (lava world, snow world, and two jungle boards). Each of these tables saw a battle fought between two armies for a central objective, which if achieved would allow them the "radio controller" or "portal" or whatnot that allowed the objectives that their allies were holding on the main tables to work.

   The way this worked out was that, for instance the chaos forces on a main table might hold a portal, but nothing would come of the portal until their ally on one of the "special" boards got the "phase transponder" under their control, for instance.

   The battle was possibly the most fun I've ever had playing 40k, and took the entire day to play. There were three judges and one main GM, and very few disputes. Everyone had a great time using rules and minis that they've never used before.

   Sorry if some of this was tough to follow because my memory is fuzzy so I don't remember specifics, but I do remember it being one of the best days of 40k played with total strangers I've ever had.

   So, while GW may not support "divergent" gaming officially or in tournaments, there are plenty of creative staffers (redshirts) who can make the hobby a great experience by hosting such events. So from my perspective, this is something you can't lay the blame on GW for but rather you must promote interest in in your own gaming community. The game I described above was created and controlled by a GW employee out of sheer love of the game (and probably some prodding from management) but he did it of his own volition and if you don't play at GW you must rely on your group to enrich your hobby experience.

These types of scenarios are the default standard for most traditional wargames.

They do tend to require a bit more complex setup, and I think require a slightly more mature mindset to accept the varied victory conditions. In many historical scenarios one side might easily expect an 80% or 90% likelihood of winning the battle, but the side getting their butt kicked may still claim a win in the scenario if they hold out a certain number of turns or achieve certain objectives.

To the best of my knowledge the fantasy and sci-fi wargaming market overall tends to favor evenly-matched battles; maybe because they are seen more as games than as simulations. Chess has (almost) perfectly matched forces and is probably the most popular wargame the world has ever known, albeit one with very abstract rules. I think scenarios with evenly-matched forces tend to have a bit higher replay value. There's often more suspense in a tight, bloody battle which either side could win. These kind of games are also much easier to score in a tournament format.

Scenarios which require an umpire/referee also have the logistical constraint of needing a third person who's willing to commit to the game without getting to be one of the guys directly competing. Such a great person and gaming buddy can be hard to find, particularly for younger gamers. Talk to a roleplayer sometime. There are lots of players, but a much smaller percentage who are typically willing and able to put in the work of running a game and taking primary responsibility for entertaining everyone else.

All that said, such scenarios can really be a great deal of fun and a wonderful change of pace. I highly recommend trying them out with any regular gaming buddies you have.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 06/10/2007 7:18 AM
   I shudder to find myself defending GW but...

They DO make a point of supporting this type of game. Two years ago (granted I haven't been back in a long time) the GW "Battle Bunker" in Glen Burnie, MD, US, held a huuuuge scenario game involving multiple tables, "factions," VDR/Forgeworld rules, and an excellently thought-out rules and mission.

Colonel.

Sounds like an excellent game. That's the kind of game I would enjoy playing . . .


 I guess in rereading my post it seemed like I was attacking GW (I wasn't trying to but it's like second nature now ) but I was just unaware of how much better the game can be with some more planning and organization. 

  I also think that a game with a GM and preset armies lends itself to enjoyment of the game more than a pre-set point limit and two people designing their armies to specifically defeat their opponent.

Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

The reason not to set up even games is that the whole point of being a commander is to try and ensure your side fights with an advantage. (Also it's boring always to be evenly matched.)

A good way to combine both approaches is to set up a campaign. You start with even forces and moving bits of your army to different areas of the campaign map will generate uneven battles. This is covered in the back of the BGB under Map Campaigns.

One of the good things about the 40K rules is the range of ways to set up scenarios.

I propose a scenarios thread.

And I'd start one, if I had even 1/2 a good idea at the moment.

Posted By Balzac on 06/10/2007 6:30 PM
I propose a scenarios thread.

And I'd start one, if I had even 1/2 a good idea at the moment.

I'll do you one better.

  What about a scenario forum in 40K or fantasy or what have you?

Scenarios that have been tested and approved could get stickied. . . .

I am running mine this weekend and will be able to post a battle report with photos