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.

How do!

Not really inspired by anything, just one of those things that drops into my head now and again.

See, whilst the background has many instances of forces being deployed in siege situations? I don’t think the game currently really caters to that. Sure, you could populate the board with lots of thematic terrain, and even pre-agree who’s taking on the roles.

But, no specific rules or scenarios seem to really address the difficulties and opportunities that occur when you’re tasked with routing a prepared position. One where troops and support are dug in, either in pillboxes or bastions, trenches or behind minefields and barbed/razor wire. A force which may have had its supply lines previously severed to reduce its fight capability and spirit.

That leaves creative space for such a thing to come along. Which is where my question arises. How detailed would you like such an expansion rule set to be?

Don’t think it would help at this early stage to offer my thoughts, not least because I’m really not up to speed on 40K. So I’ll leave the rest in your capable hands.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do!

Not really inspired by anything, just one of those things that drops into my head now and again.

See, whilst the background has many instances of forces being deployed in siege situations? I don’t think the game currently really caters to that. Sure, you could populate the board with lots of thematic terrain, and even pre-agree who’s taking on the roles.

But, no specific rules or scenarios seem to really address the difficulties and opportunities that occur when you’re tasked with routing a prepared position. One where troops and support are dug in, either in pillboxes or bastions, trenches or behind minefields and barbed/razor wire. A force which may have had its supply lines previously severed to reduce its fight capability and spirit.

That leaves creative space for such a thing to come along. Which is where my question arises. How detailed would you like such an expansion rule set to be?

Don’t think it would help at this early stage to offer my thoughts, not least because I’m really not up to speed on 40K. So I’ll leave the rest in your capable hands.

For Fantasy, the gold standard (imho, of course) was set with Warhammer Siege in 5th edition, which was more like a mini-campaign or campaign system where you started with preliminary patrol clashes and such, and then had some sort of decision tree where both attacker and defender could make choices (like trying to sally forth, preparing more siege equipment, trying to starve the defenders, sending out messengers to rally help and so on), not all of which resulted in a separate battle (but some did, like for example a skirmish-level game of trying to intercept the messengers). In the end, the whole thing culminated in the final assault on the defenders, with both sides getting buffs and debuffs depending on their previous choices and the outcome of the preliminary clashes (for example, building more siege equipment gave you more points or a higher point limit for war machines in the final assault, while a successfull sally could destroy enemy war machines or break the siege alltogether, turning the final game in an open battle. Messengers could bring in additional troops from the attackers flank, but if the messenger mission totally failed the defenders got a boardwide morale debuff, and so on). That system is pretty involved, but could be great with additions for the more esoteric elements, and perhaps some army-specific options in the scenario/decision tree.

Now, for 40k, a similar thing could probably work, but would need much more thought devoted to conceptual work for setting-appropriate "actions" (like airmobile insertions or whatever) and to include armies that are almost invariably cast in a specific role in the background (e.g. Tyranids usually don't fortify, Necrons, Demons, Dark Eldar etc. all need some conceptualizing to make them fit in the frame and so on). Obviously, if you wanted to do it "right", it would need to be a whole system of linked BFG, Epic, Killteam and 40k battles, or a whole nother kettle of fish in form of a proper "Grand Strategy" game that's more for the Guillimans and less for the Angrons, if you catch my drift.

I think a linked campaign could definitely work.

Combat Patrol sort of size for preparatory missions. For instance, those laying siege seeking to cut off supply lines, and the besieged doing some sort of sortie to attack and sabotage enemy artillery.

Ideally, the results of each pre-Big Push mission would have an impact on said Big Push.

If the attempt to sabotage artillery went poorly? The attacker gets off-board artillery support. Basically whichever artillery survived the attack get a say. If the supply lines weren’t severed, the defenders can replenish units, or perhaps fire twice here and there, representing the urgency of the moment (we hold them here or we’re all dead) and a plentiful supply of ammo. If it was successful, ammo reserves are assumed to have been depleted, so fewer options.

I’d definitely want both (or all, if it’s a team game!) players to feel they had genuine agency prior to the Big Push. And that if things went well? Their previous cunning dealt the opponent a serious blow to their chances in the grand finale.

What could be fun, if there are multiple players? Is for each Prep Mission option, they can each assign a maximum number of points.

For illustration, let’s call it up to 500 points, which must be drawn from the same list you’ll be fielding in the finale.

So an attempt to silence the attackers big guns could see the force assigned to it range from 500 to 500 x However Many Players On That Team. And the other team get the same option. Do you gamble any attack on your artillery is going to be desultory, or assign a significant garrison and hope you’ve not wasted your finite resources, when they could be off smashing up a supply line, knocking out AA emplacements etc.

Other missions might be highly limited in the units that can take part. A surgical assassination attempt deep behind enemy lines may only allow units with Infiltrate.

And if I was to go really mental? Have Losses Count. Especially for the Besieged. Not necessarily Once Dead, Forever Dead. But I’d definitely want it to feel like both sides are wise to husband resources, and really weight up the risk and benefit of a given potential action.

Heck, if we assume a rapid series of events? Any Infiltrating Units sent off to Assassinate a target, or destroy a fuel/ammo dump etc would be delayed to the main battle, representing the distance to cross, and that exfiltration is somewhat harder because the foe knows you’re out there, somewhere.

I think campaign is the only option now. Siege usually took long time. And it would be logically accurate. 500 pts recon. Then initially assault. Then separate battles for trenches, bastions walls etc.. many games.