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 the past, I've really enjoyed 40k variants with smaller armies be they Zone Mortalis, 7th edition's Combat Patrol, or even just smaller games of 40k. Boarding Action sounds really cool, but I haven't been able to get my hands on the book for it yet.

For those of you who also enjoy smaller games, what's your preferred set of rules for games involving a handful of squads?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
In the past, I've really enjoyed 40k variants with smaller armies be they Zone Mortalis, 7th edition's Combat Patrol, or even just smaller games of 40k. Boarding Action sounds really cool, but I haven't been able to get my hands on the book for it yet.

For those of you who also enjoy smaller games, what's your preferred set of rules for games involving a handful of squads?

Onepagerules lol.

40k's current ruleset doesn't work at a smaller scale

I'll second OnePageRules! I have my qualms with it, but it's quick and clean and fun!

Zone Mortalis.

3rd edition, back when GW hadn't got silly with Knights, gargants and Titans...

...looks at the Knights hanging on on the book shelf...

Xenos Rampant looks good, mind.

I am loving Kill Team and 25 PL Crusade.

I find that the Strategic Assets in Kill Team give me modelling ideas for terrain which in turn affects mission selection/ creation.

The experience breaks are the same for Kill Team and Crusade, so I pick a battle honour from both games every time a character levels, and use the trait which is appropriate to the game I'm playing at the time.

25PL isn't much of a model count step-up from a kill team either. One of my favourite Crusades is Inquisitor Draxus with a 5 strong Fortis KT + a Watch Master with a 5 strong Proteus KT. Four units, twelve dudes and the whole lot of 'em could be carried in a single Corvus Blackstar. I know KT has no HQ Units, but this little army feels like a kill team.

I like campaign-style play, and I typically play escalation, but the early stages are really cool because the book keeping is less burdensome.

8-25PL is a great space to play.
You don't need stratagems, detachments and all that

Quick, fun, loaded with narrative drama!

 Blndmage wrote:
8-25PL is a great space to play.
You don't need stratagems, detachments and all that

Quick, fun, loaded with narrative drama!

At that point why not just play Kill Team, a far better game at that tiny scale?

I can't speak for Blndmage, but in my case, I think the answer is that 25PL allows you to take units that aren't available in Kill Team.

I think about cool little units like Hellions and Beasts, and they don't have Kill Team rules.

I'm prepping some models for 15PL Open play at my store- that's just an Archon, 10 Kabalites, and four Court of the Archon models. In KT, I'd only be able to play the Kabalites from that list.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
8-25PL is a great space to play.
You don't need stratagems, detachments and all that

Quick, fun, loaded with narrative drama!

At that point why not just play Kill Team, a far better game at that tiny scale?

For us, those I play with, kill team is too granular, too fine. We prefer the granularity of 40k.

Can't speak for current Kill Team, but I was massively disappointed when I got the old Killteam "elites" book and saw that Loyalist Scum got jump pack units, but CSM? No Raptors/Warp Talons. Boooooo.

Speaking for myself, there are just a few barriers to entry that keep me from trying out the new KT rules.

1. It's another book to buy, and who knows how long the rules will remain valid for?
2. I already have the previous edition of KT's rules, and I haven't grown sick of it yet. Ditto Shadow War Armageddon.
3. Weird dice tell me there will be a slight learning curve to the rules. Which is fine, but I'm constantly trying to absorb a few different game systems at any given time. Compare to the previous edition of KT where the turn structure was different, but the basics of how attacks work are 99% the same.
4. The promo material for the new edition of KT made it sound like list building was heavily restricted even compared to the previous edition. As a large part of the appeal of KT is customizing your squad, having fewer unit types/team themes to play around with was a turn off.
5. My recent cravings are for something a smidge larger than a KT game. 2k games of 40k are a bit long and cluttered for my taste, but I do like the idea of having a few different squads working together. The skirmish tier games are great, but there's a bit of a different feel there.

 Blndmage wrote:
For us, those I play with, kill team is too granular, too fine. We prefer the granularity of 40k.

Seems like kind of a waste of time. At only 160 points per side you're playing with what, 1-2 units each? You don't have enough stuff on the table to have meaningful decision trees and the game comes down to just rolling dice to see who rolls better, if the game wasn't already won in the list building phase and not worth playing beyond that.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
For us, those I play with, kill team is too granular, too fine. We prefer the granularity of 40k.

Seems like kind of a waste of time. At only 160 points per side you're playing with what, 1-2 units each? You don't have enough stuff on the table to have meaningful decision trees and the game comes down to just rolling dice to see who rolls better, if the game wasn't already won in the list building phase and not worth playing beyond that.

We have fun making a story and enjoying each other's company. It's not about who wins, it's about what happens.

We don't play at the very bottom of the scale that often, usually we're around 12PL +-1, as that what the recruit box has in it.

 Blndmage wrote:
We have fun making a story and enjoying each other's company. It's not about who wins, it's about what happens.

Then why not play a RPG where the game is about collaborative storytelling and built to work well for it, not a scaled down version of an adversarial mass battle game where you have too few units on the table to tell an interesting story? With such a tiny game it's very obvious what each side wants to do to win and little room for anything besides "run straight at the enemy and charge ASAP" or "stand as far back as possible and hope you can roll well enough before they charge". It seems like you're focused way more on figuring out a way to have some weird validation of "playing 40k" than asking which game is best suited to your needs.

We don't play at the very bottom of the scale that often, usually we're around 12PL +-1, as that what the recruit box has in it.

250 points is still ridiculously tiny. Even 500 point games struggle to have meaningful decision trees because there are so few units on the table.

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
For us, those I play with, kill team is too granular, too fine. We prefer the granularity of 40k.

Seems like kind of a waste of time. At only 160 points per side you're playing with what, 1-2 units each? You don't have enough stuff on the table to have meaningful decision trees and the game comes down to just rolling dice to see who rolls better, if the game wasn't already won in the list building phase and not worth playing beyond that.

We have fun making a story and enjoying each other's company. It's not about who wins, it's about what happens.

We don't play at the very bottom of the scale that often, usually we're around 12PL +-1, as that what the recruit box has in it.

Discussion ended, IMHO. If Blindmage and their friends are enjoying themselves, then it's nobodies business how they do it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Discussion ended, IMHO. If Blindmage and their friends are enjoying themselves, then it's nobodies business how they do it.

Except here they are, engaging in a discussion forum about the best small game format. If they want to say "none of your business, we do our private thing" they're free to not post in a public discussion forum about it and actually be private.

Don’t you have a social obligation to be polite?

Small PL 40k games work. They work for Blndmage, and they might work for others too. You don’t think they work well, and are free to say so, but don’t crap on someone else for having fun differently.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Discussion ended, IMHO. If Blindmage and their friends are enjoying themselves, then it's nobodies business how they do it.

Except here they are, engaging in a discussion forum about the best small game format. If they want to say "none of your business, we do our private thing" they're free to not post in a public discussion forum about it and actually be private.

The question was "what's your preferred set of rules for games involving a handful of squads". They answered that question. If it isn't your preferred set of rules? Please, inform us on yours. And refrain from attacking the preferences of others.

Small PL/points games are fine as long as neither person is trying to game it with metagaming gak. It's not as good as in the olden days of "40k in 40 minutes" or "lunchhammer" due to rules bloat but can be enjoyable. You absolutely need boarding party type restrictions though on what can be taken.
For example you probably want to limit dreadnoughts and vehicles and stuff like that, and disallow special characters. Probably limit to just a patrol detachment.

Personally I miss the days when 750 points made for a small but very exciting game without a lot of additional crap. I still think that the 1000 to about 1,500 mark is this sweet spot for gaming provided you have restrictions in play. You have enough points to play around with stuff but not so high that you can really bring the most egregious combos

Wyldhunt wrote:Speaking for myself, there are just a few barriers to entry that keep me from trying out the new KT rules.

1. It's another book to buy, and who knows how long the rules will remain valid for?
2. I already have the previous edition of KT's rules, and I haven't grown sick of it yet. Ditto Shadow War Armageddon.
3. Weird dice tell me there will be a slight learning curve to the rules. Which is fine, but I'm constantly trying to absorb a few different game systems at any given time. Compare to the previous edition of KT where the turn structure was different, but the basics of how attacks work are 99% the same.
4. The promo material for the new edition of KT made it sound like list building was heavily restricted even compared to the previous edition. As a large part of the appeal of KT is customizing your squad, having fewer unit types/team themes to play around with was a turn off.
5. My recent cravings are for something a smidge larger than a KT game. 2k games of 40k are a bit long and cluttered for my taste, but I do like the idea of having a few different squads working together. The skirmish tier games are great, but there's a bit of a different feel there.

You are not wrong on these points, but I am really enjoying the current Kill Team. For once GW can really focus on balance because there are so many fewer choices players can make when constructing a force. You gain strong balance at the cost of the vast sandbox that is WH40K.

That being said, GW is focusing heavily on making the non-Compendium Kill Teams have lots of variety. They managed to give a mixed Skatarii Hunter Clade Kill Team 14 choices of operatives.

And there are no strange dice, just a unintuitive, needless complex way of giving distances.

Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
For us, those I play with, kill team is too granular, too fine. We prefer the granularity of 40k.

Seems like kind of a waste of time. At only 160 points per side you're playing with what, 1-2 units each? You don't have enough stuff on the table to have meaningful decision trees and the game comes down to just rolling dice to see who rolls better, if the game wasn't already won in the list building phase and not worth playing beyond that.

We have fun making a story and enjoying each other's company. It's not about who wins, it's about what happens.

We don't play at the very bottom of the scale that often, usually we're around 12PL +-1, as that what the recruit box has in it.

I love that people are able to take the system and find the best way to play for them. As much as I love tossing 2K of models on the table, I think 40K actually plays better at lower points levels if they player are trying to tell a story and have fun, not smash each others face in.

Wayniac wrote:
For example you probably want to limit dreadnoughts and vehicles and stuff like that, and disallow special characters.

That's unfair to people who bought tank armies. People just need to bring anti-tank, if you can't deal with at least two LRBTs in a 500 point game you have a bad list and should improve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
I love that people are able to take the system and find the best way to play for them. As much as I love tossing 2K of models on the table, I think 40K actually plays better at lower points levels if they player are trying to tell a story and have fun, not smash each others face in.

How do you tell a story with a competitive game where the rules tell you to try to beat your opponent, not to cooperate with them? Your units can't do anything except kill the enemy and be killed and then you add up points. Are you telling the story of "the guy who stood on that one spot before dying and scored lots of VP for his faction"? Do you just stop playing and decide that the marines and tyranids are going to be friends now?

Wyldhunt wrote:In the past, I've really enjoyed 40k variants with smaller armies be they Zone Mortalis, 7th edition's Combat Patrol, or even just smaller games of 40k. Boarding Action sounds really cool, but I haven't been able to get my hands on the book for it yet.

For those of you who also enjoy smaller games, what's your preferred set of rules for games involving a handful of squads?

Loving kill team. Its everything I need or want from 40k. Previously, loved the old '40k in 40minutes' format. Don't really have much time for infinity in comparison I'm afraid.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Then why not play a RPG where the game is about collaborative storytelling and built to work well for it, not a scaled down version of an adversarial mass battle game where you have too few units on the table to tell an interesting story?

I mean, to be fair to blindmage, you don't need an rpg to engage in collaborative storytelling or enjoy a narrative. Remember as I explained to you before, modern rpg's came out of older historicals. Plenty folks do the whole 'collaborative storytelling' with their wargames and have done so.for decades.

 Conscript #760714 wrote:


That's unfair to people who bought tank armies. People just need to bring anti-tank, if you can't deal with at least two LRBTs in a 500 point game you have a bad list and should improve it.

Nah, gerts right. its got nothing to do with it being unfair. smaller games need a smaller 'scope'.

 Conscript #760714 wrote:

How do you tell a story with a competitive game where the rules tell you to try to beat your opponent, not to cooperate with them? Your units can't do anything except kill the enemy and be killed and then you add up points. Are you telling the story of "the guy who stood on that one spot before dying and scored lots of VP for his faction"? Do you just stop playing and decide that the marines and tyranids are going to be friends now?

Maybe I'm wrong but that sounds like 'I've never explored a narrative' without actually saying 'I've never explored a narrative'.

(1) just because its adversarial, it doesnt stop two people collaborating on making a fair match up and working on an interesting scenario. '2000pts and go' with 'blind' match ups and 'list-building-for-advantage' isn't the only way of game-building.

(2) on its most basic level, impose your imagination on the mechanics and resolutions. Talk to the other guy and have a running commentary. Put yourself in their shoes, whether its a 'hard scifi' take or something akin to 'horrible histories' (you know... tongue in cheek...) gaming 101 for wargaming for most of its history and still extremely common within historical gaming and the 'garage' scene. We've been doing this for ten years now. Nothing at all wrong with it. Honestly it saved gaming for me when I utterly burned out of tournaments. Twice.

Boarding Actions is real good. The limitation on certain kinds of units and the corridors means there's no alpha strike and very little shenanigans with super-powerful units dominating the field. You can also win even if you lose all your models, as the objectives are more important.

Wayniac wrote:


How do you tell a story with a competitive game where the rules tell you to try to beat your opponent, not to cooperate with them? Your units can't do anything except kill the enemy and be killed and then you add up points. Are you telling the story of "the guy who stood on that one spot before dying and scored lots of VP for his faction"? Do you just stop playing and decide that the marines and tyranids are going to be friends now?

In Crusade games, winning often isn't my objective. In most cases, I'll play Agendas every time, and agendas don't contribute to whether you win or lose like secondaries do.

Stories also emerge in the macro-scale. So sometimes it isn't a single battle that's telling the story, but rather, a series of battles. And there are stories at multiple levels- so there's the army level story, the detachment level story and the unit level story. If you run gestalt Crusade/ Kill Team units like I do, you can also have individual stories. An easy story hook that works at the unit level is preferred enemy. So let's say in game two of the series, a unit takes a particularly hard beating from another unit- their unit gets wiped out and ends up with an egregious battle scar. Now it's game five in the series, and your still scarred unit is in a position to swoop in and claim a late game objective that will flip the game in your favour. But off to the flank, there's a unit that matches the one that gave them their scar. Heck, if you're playing a campaign, maybe it's not just a unit of the same type... Maybe it's actually the same guys!

So do you take the objective and aim for the win... Or do you avenge the injury done by your nemesis. I don't know how many of you have made this choice on the battlefield, but it's a common one. In Crusade, I'll mark the bases with the skulls of my enemies when I level... And your unit champion's head on my base as a conversation starter in every subsequent game I play might just be worth the loss.

My GSC is growing according to the breeding cycle as I add units. It started as a Kill Team of purestrains. They've implanted enough humans now that we're almost ready to breed the first generation of Acolytes. I'm still months away from a Magus. I know which model is destined to become the Patriarch, but he hasn't finished his evolution yet.

The Torchbearer Fleet Crusade rules might still be some of the best work that was published this edition. Every Fleet plays through the story of a band of Greyshield Primaris tracking down the chapter they are intending to reinforce and then integrate with it. They do this with company from other Imperial forces- particularly Custodes and Admech, with a smattering of Agents sprinkled in for good measure. So you can Crusade with 12-15 PL of Primaris, or Admech or Custodes and then they can combine any 2 of those factions for 25-30PL or go all in for 50PL. It's really cool because it desynchronizes the experience level of each of the 3 subfactions. So one player might end up with Battle-Hardened Primaris, Blooded Custodes and novice Admech. That impacts the story in a battle profoundly- when you novice unit scores a vital objective and brings home the win? That's a big deal.

My DE are pretty interesting too, though I'm really just getting started. My Archon had his splinter realm virtually wiped out when the Daemons invaded Commorragh during the Gathering Storm after Yvraine fought Lelith. His territories have been smashed, his trueborn have deserted him... he has nothing more that two units of Kabalites cobbled together from the survivors of the demon raids. His Kabal are toxin crafters, so he's courting a Lhameaen.

Most people think of Lhamaeans as merely one member in a Court of the Archon... And that may be how it's played on the field, because those are the rules. But what's really going on is that this Lhamaean is powerful. They two Sslyth body guards and the Medusa that make up the rest of the court? They fight for the Archon, but only because she orders it. The archon, utterly without territory? He desperately needs the Poison Distilleries at her disposal. These distilleries are serviced by a small fleet of Corsair Pirates that are on contract with her.

So when he invites her on a realspace raid, she isn't there as a servant, and neither is her Court. They are measuring his worthiness as an ally.

After that fateful raid, my Archon has managed to recover one piece of his Arena complex, and he's assembled a team of 5 stock wyches. The Lhamaean also has a team of 5 stock wyches. These two teams will battle in a two round event: the first sees a complete set of wych weapons hidden on the board. Any wych who finds one and gets it off the arena floor gets to keep it. In the second round, the two wyches marked for greatness in the previous round go head to head on a board full of hidden traps for the title of Hekatrix.

If the Archon's team wins, the Lhamaean surrenders a distillery. If the Lhamaean's team wins, she gets a stake in his Arena complex. Either way, the wych cult that wins a Hekatrix title will be contracted by the Archon. Another guest at the games that night, a haemonculus, will quietly make a sinister deal with the losing Cult.

The two wych cults are both custom cults- it just didn't seem right to tell this story with any of the big names, even though it would have given me a competitive edge. They're going to fight a lot of really unique battles in that arena. I'm trying to figure out how to make a reaver/ hellion track add on for the arena. It'll be fun to declare enemies put out of action as slaves and bring them back to the arena. Two wych cults competing to see who can take down the most prisoners? Legendary.

And you know what deal the haemonculus made, right? He gets the dead and critically wounded to build his coven of wracks.

Stories in 40k are literally everywhere. You just have to stop paying attention to the meta and winning to see them.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


250 points is still ridiculously tiny. Even 500 point games struggle to have meaningful decision trees because there are so few units on the table.

I can see your point, although we do enjoy running sessions of KT'18 at 300 points, importing a light vehicle from 8th edition 40K. Not perfect but works surprisingly well, and leaves one wondering why GW doesn't consider it as an option for regular 40K. The mod certainly made sense when they introduced the Broodlord and Patriarch, considering they are capable of besting a Warglaive...

 JNAProductions wrote:
Don’t you have a social obligation to be polite?

Small PL 40k games work.

Sometimes work for some factions. Some factions are already petering out at 2K, while some can't even get going under 1500 or so. The faction you're playing is going to heavily influence whether smaller games work.

We did a series of games as part of our last campaign that were capped at 750 points and using the ProHammer rules. ProHammer adds some detail and nuances to the rules that fit smaller scale skirmish games really well IMHO.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Don’t you have a social obligation to be polite?

Small PL 40k games work.

Sometimes work for some factions. Some factions are already petering out at 2K, while some can't even get going under 1500 or so. The faction you're playing is going to heavily influence whether smaller games work.

What factions don't work at 1,500 and lower?

 Blndmage wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Don’t you have a social obligation to be polite?

Small PL 40k games work.

Sometimes work for some factions. Some factions are already petering out at 2K, while some can't even get going under 1500 or so. The faction you're playing is going to heavily influence whether smaller games work.

What factions don't work at 1,500 and lower?

Titans.