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.

Curious what the cross-over is with regards to those who enjoy military history, or would consider themselves a military history fan.

I grew up with a heavy military history presence in the house. Visited loads of wartime museums as a kid, cut my teeth on ASL in high school (and failed miserably), I enjoy a game of WW2 (preferably the Battlegroup series) as much as 40K, but because of this - I view 40K from a "military history" lens. I'm interested in assymetric army sizes, scenarios based around desperate last-ditch efforts. I build armies based on fluff/theme because that's how they would be in the "real/fake" universe. I even have "battle fatigued" tables we used when we play games locally.

I don't believe 40K is very suited to this - at all, thus why I don't enjoy 40K as much as I'd like. I'd actually 100% enjoy fake historical campaign books with pre-determined army lists (much as you get when playing historical scenarios in a WW2 game, etc.). My buddies always say "why don't you take this", and my response is "Well, story-wise, as I've developed this Renegade chapter they don't use or have access to those, or they don't worship that God, etc.). It penalizes me in games on occasion, but I enjoy the structure behind the game that's occuring almost more than the game itself.

If you think back to famous historical battles, they're almost always the most desperately imbalanced things..and to me that makes a far better story than 1:1 ratio of performance on a level playing field. I'm not interested in the Chess aspect of 40K, but rather the story behind what's happening. 40K isn't terribly good at presenting a quality story (though 8th is better than many previous editions). There is reason military history nuts enjoy studying Rorke's Drift, Bastogne, Operation Market Garden, the American Revolution, etc...and a reason why nobody wargames the first Gulf War (where one side just dominated the other so heavily throughly through logistics, planning and military might). It's the desperation, the impossible odds, the incredible survival...that's what makes the good story, it's what drives our interest as military history hobbyists.

So just curious to see if there is a correlation between the two types of people.

I am into military history, but my primary focus in 40K is getting a good pick-up game. Having a solid 2K army is the best formula for my club, and I also really enjoy the list-tweaking process.

I'll try to build a theme into my army using a combination of models I like and lore of the army. Aka, Tactical Squads are purchased in 10-man units, and I'll take a bunch of them and play them as competitively as possible. However, if there are models that don't make the gameplay cut, I won't take them even though I love-em. (Land Speeders/Raiders)

Also, I really don't like playing with unpainted models, which limits some of my options.

Hard to say.
I don't mind military history but I wouldn't consider myself an enthusiast.
I play whatever I can get and in my area that's usually competitive which I do enjoy, I like the idea of narrative and used to enjoy roleplay games but the narrative groups and slow grow leagues always tend to fall apart - between commitments and people who drop out as soon as their chances of winning drop below 50% the groups just dissolve.
Had to drop out of the last one myself because work decided it would be more efficient to halve their workforce and pressure the remainder to pick up extra shifts, wave bye bye to sport and hobbies.

I'm super-into WWII, but only really interested in anything else insomuch as it informs WWII.

Am I a military-history fan?

As for gaming style, I play a nakedly Red Army-inspired Slaanesh soup (the R&H portion of which hail from Kronstaat), I write little stories about them and will happily gimp my lists if not doing so would clash with a narrative element.

I would say so, yes.

Warhammer has always had the appeal of blending fantastical elements with more or less obvious real historical references, which has added a nice layer of verisimilitude in it, even when the context otherwise goes crazy. Some of the better written parts of FB and 40k (for me) always came from these ideas, like the Stalingrad references in the Armageddon War or how Tuomas Pirinen used bits of Finland's Winter War while creating the lore on the Empire and beastmen. Also most of the nordic peoples in the Old World, like the Kurgans, are basically heavy metal Finns of different historical eras

When I was young, just cobbling miniatures together and bashing armies against each other was fun enough, but after many years of immersing oneself in historical martial arts, war stories, dicussions about the importance of logistics and a generally broadened view of the world, I'm now a lot more interested in the things of grander scale. Why is this battle fought? What grander campaign does it belong to? What sort of political struggles led to it in the first place? How could we best represent clausewitzian operational friction in a game while still retaining ease of playability?

I blame years of semihistorical old school D&D for much of this, especially when played true to it's old challenge orienteered form without any balance considerations nor entitlements of success. Exploring curious historical oddities, customs and logistical considerations (like supply trains or outbreaks of disease) while trying to outsmart the world with your friends through blood, mud and gak really hammered home the fact that nobody who likes to not die marches into war without good reasons and meticulous planning. I really like that way of playing, as it really encourages all players to learn more and contribute to the greater good of all involved while sharing that common enthusiasm about military (and other) history. Nobody goes for fair fights, nor do battles matter as much as wars, which works as a cool spring board for reasons and objectives to batle over in the miniature world. On that note, I really loved the original Siege of Vraks texts (before the crazy chaos escalation), as they focused on the grueling attrition warfare and logistics side of the hellish world while telling those little stories that feel like proper war memoires. Grand scale, massive operations, small stories of little people like that one colonel and his bunker assault squad who overtook a heretic outpost, surprising everybody, and held it for three days straight almost dying to the last man while the high command was busy trying to get an armoured breakthrough force in gear to exploit the opening. That is something I want to see in my miniature games too: cool little moments that can turn into other stories through more games, be they in the same system or not (been thinking about a somewhat narrative crossover campaign with 40k, Kill Team, Epic, BFG, Titanicus and what not with some pals as my latest hobby Grail).

I find it pretty interesting that while I just love a good narrative game, my armies and unit choices are guided more by the ruleset. There are some harder restrictions that stem from the narrative I have, like my loyalist Death Guard splinter that's descended from the crew of Eisenstein not using any daemons or zombies in their force, but beyond those it's mostly softly optimised for game purposes. Granted, if my opponent is game with some more wacky narrative stuff (like the "how does this ship suck" table of problems I wrote for BFG to randomize how each ship is a terrible rustbucket), all of that optimisation flies out of the window and hilarity ensues.

I haven't yet gotten my feet properly wet with refereed miniature gaming in the spirit of good ol' kriegspiel (or oldhammer, if that feels more appropriate in this context), but that is something I'm currently itching to try out. Like reading historical texts and codexes is important to learn martial arts of bygone days, I think it's good for one's own design skills to read and try systems of old to see if they click and alter them shamelessly for one's own ends. My hope is that I'll get around to organising a proper Rogue Trader game this summer, refereeing (or gamesmastering, choose your poison) some for my friends with all sorts of mid-game twists, secret objectives and all that jazz which made hidden information kriegspiels great to begin with.

Everything is better with context, all in all.

A good chunk of my war gaming experience was based on WWII. It wasn't always directly the war as some alt-history sci-fi pulp stuff, but as I learned more of about the war I always felt that the games allowed for at least superficial WWII style tactics/strategies used.

I completely agree that 40k doesn't feel like any sort of modern (read: post WWII) war. Every now and again I try to apply some of the WWII style miniatures war game tactics I used in previous games (such as basic fire and maneuver or Able-Baker-Charlie) and 40k simply doesn't allow them to work in any way.

It simply isn't designed for it at all. I am starting to have quite the collection of space marines/scouts with sniper rifles and none of them can be taken in two man teams except maybe in Kill Team with a Comm and Sniper specialist actually work very well together. Even by a fluff reason, I can't think why you would want a bigger team of snipers than two men. It is the little stuff like that sometimes bothers me. Same could be said about flamers which 40k has actually made them better defensive weapons than assault weapons which just feels weird to me. It is just of bunch of little things like that.

In some ways 40k follows some basic strategies that I am aware of modern war. Such as infantry protecting armor. However, it does it in such a strange way (basically red rovering around a tank to protect in from man portable ordnance (infantry assault).

I too would really like some 40k 'historical' campaign books that basically detail the entire forces for both sides and sets up a bunch missions balanced off them. Basically full armies campaigns like what is in Shadowspear or other boxed games.

I know they aren't very likely as it would require both players to have the model collection as detailed in the campaign book. Easy for a boxed set, hard for a 1000, 1250, 1500 or 1850 point game. Doubly unlikely as the list building stage is removed. Which is fine by me as I don't much care for it anymore, but know the majority of players really enjoy tailoring their army list.

All of my battle plans are based on the first battle of bull run, long live the union.

I played Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz [and other historical board games] and made historical model tanks since 3rd grade, I would say I'm a military history fan. [And it's not just the World Wars, though they're definitely over-represented on my bookshelf and in conversation topics, I'll happily talk about tactics, strategy, equipment and conflicts from antiquity to the present]

I've taken efforts to coherently mark my IG tanks with WWII tank markings, with "correct" squadron identification marks, bridge load plates, IFF roundels, etc.


However, I'm also very much at the competitive end of 40k. I don't see the point in A: playing a game with a forgone conclusion, and B: playing someone else's story, since it doesn't even have any historical basis. I would much rather bring a competitive list to a competitive game than do some representation of the 40k fluff, because at that point I'd rather play an RPG or write fanfiction.

I am competitive minded but I couldn't be bothered even playing a 40k game without some fluff consideration in the list design. It's why I don't do tournaments anymore, the lists that live there lack any kind of soul, kinda turn me off from the game.

As is taking this game as the high end of competitive just feels bad in general, the system is not nearly stream lined enough for it to both look good, feel good and functional well at the bleeding edge.

So that historical, fluff driven eye to the battles I feel gives it just the sweet spot that some other game systems lack. The system just isn't engaging enough to run on its own merits without the fluff holding it up. Though I'd say histoicals tend to feel better for me anyways over just competitive pursuits. I need the story behind the game, not the game devoid of story.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I played Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz [and other historical board games] and made historical model tanks since 3rd grade, I would say I'm a military history fan. [And it's not just the World Wars, though they're definitely over-represented on my bookshelf and in conversation topics, I'll happily talk about tactics, strategy, equipment and conflicts from antiquity to the present]

I've taken efforts to coherently mark my IG tanks with WWII tank markings, with "correct" squadron identification marks, bridge load plates, IFF roundels, etc.


However, I'm also very much at the competitive end of 40k. I don't see the point in A: playing a game with a forgone conclusion, and B: playing someone else's story, since it doesn't even have any historical basis. I would much rather bring a competitive list to a competitive game than do some representation of the 40k fluff, because at that point I'd rather play an RPG or write fanfiction.

I think there is a considerably wide margin between playing competitive (which I always read as extremely limited unit/faction choices more than anything else) and playing a historical/forgone conclusion. In some ways I actually seeing them loop back around. By playing competitive, players are already limiting their unit options to the 'good' ones and many tournaments are fairly limited in the missions they use already. So in many ways, playing a competitive tournament is as much as a forgone conclusion as playing a 'historical' game. The only difference is the player got to pick the units, and that is often a pretty short list anyways.

Just like any good historical war game, I can see a 40k 'historical' game being nearly as competitive as any tournament game. Both armies should already be balanced toward each other for the mission involved ideally. There should be differing ways to accomplish the mission objectives all with risks involved and further modified by the current game state. In the historical recreation games I have played, it is the game state that often forces the player to deviate from the historical action. After all no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Certainly, if played enough times, these missions will probably be puzzled out. Which is fine, I wouldn't expect a $40 US campaign book to have endless replay value. I haven't personally experienced these historical games where the are setup where one player loses no matter what. The historic battle might be loss, but the actual game objectives should always possible to be accomplished. Otherwise, you don't have a game. You have an activity.

I can understand not wanting to play a 'historical' battle based on them not being 'your dudes'. What I am saying is I don't think in the case of a 'historical' 40k campaign book you can't have competitive games. They can be just as competitive as any hex and chit game and being a game either player should have all the elements at the start for a fairly equal chance at winning. If the game goes one way they post game description could say well 'historically' the battle went this way, the records were lost or whatever. Being that it is all made up anyways, the campaign could be bookended with the idea that the campaign in a lost data slate describing the battles and the way the players play them is how that battles went. The player that won the campaign is how historically the battles went.

Saturmorn brings up a lot of the points I enjoy about historical based games.

Again, the engagements are often historical in nature - either simple engagements that occured or amazing instances (the kind where people win metals and movies are made later about it). The good ones include a decent little map of how the board should generally be set-up, and then you have orders of battle which indicate who was fighting in the engagement.

The challenge more or less becomes a couple of things:

1) Can you do as well as the lucky original combatants who won against all odds? Hell, can you do even better?
2) Can you re-write history and win (it's always fun to read the actual results of these historical engagements after the fact and see how your game played out compared to it) where the original combatants lost?
3) Anyone can win with a carefully calculated math-based advantageous force. Can you defeat the enemy witht he rear-echelon troops, the transport trucks, two mortars and some cooks armed with rifles?

Historical scenarios often have reinforcements which arrived either on designated turns or with reinforcement rolls - sometimes the reinforcements are even random. In many games they'll have the order of battle and then one or two options for the player (to add their taste to the game). You might have a dictated Space Marine list and then you can choose one of three additional units to include in your force, etc.

It's always fun to compare your game vs. the actual outcome (a fictitious one if they were to ever do a 40K book in this fashion - I think some of the Imperial Armour books may have had pre-designed games like this back in other editions?). The advantages would also include the fact that GW could (in theory) playtest each scenario a ton because the forces are fixed. So feedback should be pretty universal etc.

An example could be something akin to say Burning of Prospero. A campaign book about Burning of Prospero might have 12-16 scenarios of special actions (perhaps yanked straight from the HH novels themselves) where you'd have the force listed out for you, and you'd get to play out the games etc. This obviously wouldn't replace 40K but could be a great option for narrative/fluff gamers.

Other than not being a tourney player, a bit of A, B, C, & D.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
A good chunk of my war gaming experience was based on WWII. It wasn't always directly the war as some alt-history sci-fi pulp stuff, but as I learned more of about the war I always felt that the games allowed for at least superficial WWII style tactics/strategies used.

I completely agree that 40k doesn't feel like any sort of modern (read: post WWII) war. Every now and again I try to apply some of the WWII style miniatures war game tactics I used in previous games (such as basic fire and maneuver or Able-Baker-Charlie) and 40k simply doesn't allow them to work in any way.

It simply isn't designed for it at all. I am starting to have quite the collection of space marines/scouts with sniper rifles and none of them can be taken in two man teams except maybe in Kill Team with a Comm and Sniper specialist actually work very well together. Even by a fluff reason, I can't think why you would want a bigger team of snipers than two men. It is the little stuff like that sometimes bothers me. Same could be said about flamers which 40k has actually made them better defensive weapons than assault weapons which just feels weird to me. It is just of bunch of little things like that.

In some ways 40k follows some basic strategies that I am aware of modern war. Such as infantry protecting armor. However, it does it in such a strange way (basically red rovering around a tank to protect in from man portable ordnance (infantry assault).

I too would really like some 40k 'historical' campaign books that basically detail the entire forces for both sides and sets up a bunch missions balanced off them. Basically full armies campaigns like what is in Shadowspear or other boxed games.

I know they aren't very likely as it would require both players to have the model collection as detailed in the campaign book. Easy for a boxed set, hard for a 1000, 1250, 1500 or 1850 point game. Doubly unlikely as the list building stage is removed. Which is fine by me as I don't much care for it anymore, but know the majority of players really enjoy tailoring their army list.

This exactly sums up my opinion of 40k. I want to play a fast light infantry force, that is designed to move up the battlefield, flank the enemy and gun them down with rifles, whilst air support, artillery and light armor provide the heavy lifting required to do so.

In 40k i am almost actively punished for moving up infantry, as i'm only getting them closer to inevitably be charged.

The game is just not designed to be played that way at all. Despite how cool 40k is, i've moved on to other systems like warlords of erehwon.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I played Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz [and other historical board games] and made historical model tanks since 3rd grade, I would say I'm a military history fan. [And it's not just the World Wars, though they're definitely over-represented on my bookshelf and in conversation topics, I'll happily talk about tactics, strategy, equipment and conflicts from antiquity to the present]

I've taken efforts to coherently mark my IG tanks with WWII tank markings, with "correct" squadron identification marks, bridge load plates, IFF roundels, etc.


However, I'm also very much at the competitive end of 40k. I don't see the point in A: playing a game with a forgone conclusion, and B: playing someone else's story, since it doesn't even have any historical basis. I would much rather bring a competitive list to a competitive game than do some representation of the 40k fluff, because at that point I'd rather play an RPG or write fanfiction.

I think there is a considerably wide margin between playing competitive (which I always read as extremely limited unit/faction choices more than anything else) and playing a historical/forgone conclusion. In some ways I actually seeing them loop back around. By playing competitive, players are already limiting their unit options to the 'good' ones and many tournaments are fairly limited in the missions they use already. So in many ways, playing a competitive tournament is as much as a forgone conclusion as playing a 'historical' game. The only difference is the player got to pick the units, and that is often a pretty short list anyways.

Just like any good historical war game, I can see a 40k 'historical' game being nearly as competitive as any tournament game. Both armies should already be balanced toward each other for the mission involved ideally. There should be differing ways to accomplish the mission objectives all with risks involved and further modified by the current game state. In the historical recreation games I have played, it is the game state that often forces the player to deviate from the historical action. After all no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Certainly, if played enough times, these missions will probably be puzzled out. Which is fine, I wouldn't expect a $40 US campaign book to have endless replay value. I haven't personally experienced these historical games where the are setup where one player loses no matter what. The historic battle might be loss, but the actual game objectives should always possible to be accomplished. Otherwise, you don't have a game. You have an activity.

I can understand not wanting to play a 'historical' battle based on them not being 'your dudes'. What I am saying is I don't think in the case of a 'historical' 40k campaign book you can't have competitive games. They can be just as competitive as any hex and chit game and being a game either player should have all the elements at the start for a fairly equal chance at winning. If the game goes one way they post game description could say well 'historically' the battle went this way, the records were lost or whatever. Being that it is all made up anyways, the campaign could be bookended with the idea that the campaign in a lost data slate describing the battles and the way the players play them is how that battles went. The player that won the campaign is how historically the battles went.

I see what you're saying, but might disagree. My competitive and open war games have almost always felt better than the games that were set up to tell a story, save one. The majority of narrative games have been worse for the measure, especially when they come with scenario rules to enforce or represent the fluff outcome.

More importantly, I just don't see the value of playing out other peoples' stories with a fictional wargame. I run RPG's for the interactive-collaborative narrative side of things [which tend to be better overall, because they're about people], and if I wanted to just tell a story, there's always the option to write fanfiction.

Scenarios in historical wargames have value because it actually happened. It provides the important context for what and why the things on the board are happened, and who they are. It's actual history, and that's the difference. We don't need this for our 40k games; adding someone else's narrative context to the game net detracts from it.

That's also kind of why I don't like the advancement of the story, though I can't deny it's been a successful move. The vastness and open-ness of the universe is generally appealing as a backdrop for the pitched battles of our little men, focusing on the characters like Guilliman, Abbaddon, Celestine, etc in books does kind of detract from the magic of the setting.

Military history is very interesting.
But when it comes to table top, not very much you can infer from military strategies.
The best one is the Lanchester square law!!!

 wuestenfux wrote:
Military history is very interesting.
But when it comes to table top, not very much you can infer from military strategies.
The best one is the Lanchester square law!!!

If you can pull it off, the ol' refused flank does actually work.

Well, in general I like to have a heavy push on my right flank in the Hellenistic style.

I started miniature gaming with WFB, and moved to WAB, and other things, and then got into 40k.

I have large library that spans from Alexander the Great to Zulus, so I am a military history enthusiast. I don't play in tournaments and I don't think most of my lists would do well in tournaments, or at least ITC. They tend to do fine in local games with regular eternal war missions.

My lists have teeth to them, but I'll use whatever strikes my fancy at the moment- whether it is competitive or not.

None really. The odd refused flank from time to time but thats about it.

I have tried hisyorical war gaming for the war of the roses era. Bought aome history books from osprey and used hail ceasar rules and recreated the battle of towton. Great fun we played the scenario twice, where once it worked in yorks favour like the real battle, and another one with lancaster win. Weather favoured one side with better range, terrain according to maps etc.

For 40k though I have never tried recreating any scenario. It feels like a game where you make your own story. Many battles are just repatative slaughters though. I feel tactical obj. Cards has made it less story driven than it used to be.

I have an interest in military history (though I doubt I'm anywhere near as knowledgeable as many in this thread), though I lean more towards medieval history than more modern conflicts (WW2 being the only exception).

In terms of playstyle, I'd describe myself as semi-competitive. I'll take some fluffy options - especially on characters and will try to squeeze in at least most of the units I want to play (regardless of their quality), but I also try to ensure that my list is at least reasonably competitive.

I don't mind playing narrative games, or at the very least games with uneven objectives (e.g. a clear attacker and defender or one army trying to protect something and the other trying to destroy it; as opposed to both sides scrounging after vague "objectives"). However, since these tend to require a bit more organising, I tend to just play the standard games.

In terms of being behind, I don't mind when it happens naturally (one of my favourite games was when my DE rolled horribly and ended up being overrun by Orks, with a handful of forces fighting desperately to hold off the tide), but it's not something I'd want to engineer by playing a terrible list.

 Elbows wrote:
I build armies based on fluff/theme because that's how they would be in the "real/fake" universe. I even have "battle fatigued" tables we used when we play games locally.

I don't believe 40K is very suited to this - at all, thus why I don't enjoy 40K as much as I'd like. I'd actually 100% enjoy fake historical campaign books with pre-determined army lists (much as you get when playing historical scenarios in a WW2 game, etc.). My buddies always say "why don't you take this", and my response is "Well, story-wise, as I've developed this Renegade chapter they don't use or have access to those, or they don't worship that God, etc.). It penalizes me in games on occasion, but I enjoy the structure behind the game that's occuring almost more than the game itself.

Would you mind sharing one of your fluffy lists? I'm quite curious as to what story-based decisions you've made with regard to list-building.

FWIW, I also probably wouldn't overly enjoy playing a pre-written 'out-of-the-box' scenario for precisely the reasons the good Inquisitor outlines; it would feel like playing someone else's story.

For me, a lot of the appeal of narrative games is to tell the story I've written/plagiarized - or my one of my friends has written/plagiarized - specifically for our group.

I don't want to re-enact the Siege of Vraks, I want to fight a campaign like the Siege of Vraks with forces of my choosing, set on Kronstaat (or whatever your planet is called) and with an open ending that can be decided by tabletop events.

I'm a big fan of military history and I think it influenced me to the point I often playing a game as if it was a real battle rather than a game. Which not always ends up good.

Like not rushing your infantrymen in front of a tank in open field.

Nothing in 40k really works like a real-life counterpart. I love historicals, but almost no one plays them.

Banville wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Military history is very interesting.
But when it comes to table top, not very much you can infer from military strategies.
The best one is the Lanchester square law!!!

If you can pull it off, the ol' refused flank does actually work.

What I actually meant is the law that doubling the number of tanks means four-folding the number of anti-tank weapons.
This law was heavily used in WWII.
It particularly works well in small pt games.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Banville wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Military history is very interesting.
But when it comes to table top, not very much you can infer from military strategies.
The best one is the Lanchester square law!!!

If you can pull it off, the ol' refused flank does actually work.

What I actually meant is the law that doubling the number of tanks means four-folding the number of anti-tank weapons.
This law was heavily used in WWII.
It particularly works well in small pt games.

Could you explain this one to me?

Vipoid

My army lists just tend to reflect more on the fluff with regard to who is fighting and why. If our narrative or campaign is about a first contact, for instance...my Eldar army will not include guardians, wraith units, etc. It will be scouts, aspect warriors, war-walkers and other units which are "scouting" or "first strike" units. If I'm playing a desperate defense, then the guardians show up en masse, as a last resort.

My CSM are more narratively built, even from units I collect. They're renegades that are half fallen to Chaos (namely Nurgle). As such I have plague marines and plaguebearers but nothing else from other gods. My Obliterators aren't marked with Slaanesh (which is clearly the best option when using stratagems). They're still just <NURGLE> keyword. I don't run Berserkers which would be fantastic with my Renegade rules (advance and charge) because...my dudes don't worship Khorne. I have a custom chapter master who is on the "not turned" side of the Renegades so he has negative rules that impact Chaos casters within 6" and he can himself never be used to summon daemons, etc.

I have a specific model for a Chaos Lord (read: renegade company captain) who only shows up on the field if his artillery and siege units are being used. I have another Chaos lord who is modeled in both Terminator armour and jump pack...but he's the same dude, so I would never use both models in the same game.

We've played numerous games where we set thematic restrictions on armies. In one game where my buddy's Dark Angels were trying to recover two of my characters who had used an escape pod to flee an overrun ship (in the previous game), we decided they had landed in a very remote area so everything in our lists had to be transported or have the fly keyword (or be a bike, etc.). This simple limitation to the army meant suddenly Rhinos, and bikes, and deepstriking and land speeders became much more important. No dreads, no squads without transport, etc.

If a character is mauled (we have most of ours named) in a game, he's unlikely to show up in the next game (we have a campaign table available for long lasting impacts from injuries if we feel like using it).

I think the main thing is simply: playing a game without the optimum list.

Why? Again I think it comes back to military history for me. Very few military commanders in history have ever had a simple choice of "well, let's take all the best equipment we have...in unlimited quantities". It's always been a struggle for making do with what you have access to. It might be rear echelon troops, or sub-par equipment, maybe damaged and recovered vehicles, exhausted soldiers, half-strength units, foreign allies who don't communicate well with you, etc. You might be exhausted, cold, stretched out over too large of a front, short on ammunition, short on food or medical supplies. Maybe the weather sucks ass, or the politicians have abandoned you, etc. There are so many elements to actual combat that aren't present in 40K. I don't mind trying to introduce a few of them.

At the same time I fully, 100% understand and acknowledge 40K is not "that game". It's just how my mind works. When people say "Why take Rhinos?" I immediately think "Well, they're probably riding in them with the ambush starts...because it's how they'd be getting around on the planet's surface..." etc. There's no real connection between fluff/story/etc. and the game mechanics at all. It never hurts to try though.

To that end I also have my own deck of bizarre deployment options: ones that are intentionally assymetric and weird. Again, why? Because battles don't occur with shockingly even placed deployments. Armies and units run into each other in bizarre ways, often by accident. I like representing that. We even have a "Strategic Initiative" system whereby a player with control of the engagement area gets to choose one of three deployment cards (but if he passes on the first card he can no longer use it as an option, same with the second, etc.). It's fun watching a player hem and haw over bizarre deployments...knowing that within the deck are some really poor deployments, so if you pass on options A, and B...and you are forced to choose C you may find yourself surrounded.



Basically I try to do as much as I can to avoid "you line up there...I line up here...whoever goes first wins by smashing their opponent in the dick."

 vipoid wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Banville wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Military history is very interesting.
But when it comes to table top, not very much you can infer from military strategies.
The best one is the Lanchester square law!!!

If you can pull it off, the ol' refused flank does actually work.

What I actually meant is the law that doubling the number of tanks means four-folding the number of anti-tank weapons.
This law was heavily used in WWII.
It particularly works well in small pt games.

Could you explain this one to me?

The Lanchester Square law models basically says that if you have A soldiers with an ability to kill the enemy B, fighting Z soldiers with ability to kill the enemy Y, then the forces over time can be modelled as dZ/dt = AB, dA/dt = ZY. The greater takeaway from this is that numerical advantage has a squared effect.

There's also the related 3:1 rule, which stipulates that, as a rule of thumb, the attacker needs three times the local power to succeed. It's frequently misused, since it refers exclusively and explicitly to the tactical level, and I'd question it's applicability to 40k. That said, concentrating your force on the attack in a narrow attack, which is the take-away of the rule, does apply. You can use 3x cost as a general benchmark for how much firepower it takes to knock out a given unit, but that's not hard and fast, and not really an application of the 3:1 rule [it's constructed, GW could change that number at any time]

Elbows

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I have to say, I really like the sound of a lot of what you've suggested here.

To be honest, I'd like to create a stronger theme for some of my armies, naming my characters (maybe even my units), creating fluff for them etc. It seems like a good way to help me get more invested in them and also to stick to a theme.

I also love a lot of the scenario ideas you've presented. Having to have everything flying, in transports (or, presumably, deep striking?) is an interesting requirement. Same goes for characters having to skip a game to recover if they get 'killed'.

Might see if any of my friends want to try something along these lines when we next play.

Your deployment cards also look like a lot of fun. Can I ask how the one in the top right works? Does the defender have to split his forces between the two red zones or is he allowed to just use the larger one?

It used to influence how I played Warhammer Fantasy because that had actual depth as a game and was influenced by ancient warfare to a certain extent.

40K is just Aura+Target Priority+Stratagem coupled with play the objective.

Vip,

Yeah for the deployment cards the army is allowed to deploy any of the coloured zones which are his/hers. We also have a deck of 6 or 8 three-person deployments, and a deck of post-game storyline cards which are used to "suggest" future games (though these are new and we haven't used them yet!)





You can see I'm a game tinkerer/game designer as a hobby so I enjoy this gak more than playing the game sometimes