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.

my idea is a new game mission.

introducing:

COMPLETE WAR

this mission is,for me, better than annihilation

instead of counting dead units,you continue playing until the enemy player(s) clearly says you win or until he has no more units on the battlefield(you killed them all or you lose if he killed all yours


SQUAD BATTLE

this "mission" is much more tactical than others.

it is inspired from the online fps games as: COD black ops and soldier of fortune

in this mission, the squads no more need to be at least at 2ps from each other.
those games would be in a building,a factory or places like those

it is played with only 2 troops and one HQ (and maybe one vehicle)

so just like soldier of fortune,each squad member is like one online player or a bot,controlled by the 40k players


with squad battles,you could even imagine respawn points for capture the flag,etc...

awseome for all those who dont have a lot of figs or for new players who only bought Assault on Black Reach




so,are those bad-ass rules and missions,or is this

So I can only win if my opponent says I win? What if he doesn't say I win? And the Squad Battle is just odd, I'll stick to Kill Team.

Valkyrie wrote:So I can only win if my opponent says I win? What if he doesn't say I win? And the Squad Battle is just odd, I'll stick to Kill Team.

Its either that or you wipe him out or the other way around.

I'm confused why you think this makes Wh40k into a First Person Shooter.

There is a mission in the battle missions book you may wish to look at.
Esentially, they remove the turn limit. That makes the game a 'last man standing' but put in a clause for draws when the models simply can't finish each other off (such as 2 immobilised chimeras looking at each others front armour with only heavy bolters)
And there is no reason to put in the 'you win if the opponent says so' rule, as that applies to any game where one player is simply beating down on the other.

As for squad battles, theres always necromunda =D

I like the "last man standing" rule. It's just your delivery of the idea that is a little kluncky.

dayve110 wrote:There is a mission in the battle missions book you may wish to look at.
Esentially, they remove the turn limit. That makes the game a 'last man standing' but put in a clause for draws when the models simply can't finish each other off (such as 2 immobilised chimeras looking at each others front armour with only heavy bolters)
And there is no reason to put in the 'you win if the opponent says so' rule, as that applies to any game where one player is simply beating down on the other.

As for squad battles, theres always necromunda =D

Necromunda is much more expensive and sorry,i didnt know for the mission in battle missions


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grayspark wrote:I'm confused why you think this makes Wh40k into a First Person Shooter.

I said i was INSPIRED by online fps games beacause they use much less players than figs in a normal 40k game


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grayspark wrote:I'm confused why you think this makes Wh40k into a First Person Shooter.

I said i was INSPIRED by online fps games beacause they use much less players than figs in a normal 40k game