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.

You might like to try TechCommander, 28mm combined arms.

here: http://www.techcommandergame.com

 Alfndrate wrote:

 djphranq wrote:

The Dark Apostle wrote:
MERCS, too many reasons to say

oooo I forgot about MERCS... yeah ... try MERCS, OP... the models look wicked awesome.

I can't get behind MERCS... the models, as you would say, look "wicked boss awesome" and I agree. I can't get around the movement of the game... I don't like the cards, and "snapping" to terrain. If I wanted to move into terrain, why can't I just move into it?

The reason why the movement is so particular in MERCS is because positioning is very important. The combination of directly straight moves (using the cards), multiple model facings, "snap2cover" mechanic limited to once in your move action, etc. collectively do the job of making you think harder about how you maneuver your troops. It sounds complicated but it's actually straightforward and quite intuitive afetr a few games. The gameplay rewards you for thinking ahead in terms of mobility and makes movement quite tactical.

Necromunda: in my opininon, it's the best game GW ever made, the rules are free, and you can keep using your existing minis and supplement only if you feel necessary. Tons of scope for modelling and conversions. Can't lose, really.

That's debatable

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That's debatable

Of course it is, was purely my opinion. For me it was the game 40K should always have been, tied up with a fun campaign system. You opinion may vary! :-)

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That's debatable

Of course it is, was purely my opinion. For me it was the game 40K should always have been, tied up with a fun campaign system. You opinion may vary! :-)

Actually it was a pretty mediocre skirmish game when played outside a campaign setting.

In a campaign it was tons of fun, and the setting was top-notch I own all of the rule books + the specialist magazines for it.

PhantomViper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That's debatable

Of course it is, was purely my opinion. For me it was the game 40K should always have been, tied up with a fun campaign system. You opinion may vary! :-)

Actually it was a pretty mediocre skirmish game when played outside a campaign setting.

In a campaign it was tons of fun, and the setting was top-notch I own all of the rule books + the specialist magazines for it.

Again, opinion. You liked, I liked more, someone else disliked. I've actually amended my original post as none of our opinions are fact, yet I expressed 'best game' as if a fact. My bad.

Since finding this post I have downloaded the rules and like the looks of them. My mate and I are going to start up I'm going to run my DV Cultists and some guardsman and he is going to run some marauders from WHFB. I'm looking forward to it.

I'm considering running House Van Sarr (I think thats them) is it better focus on shooty units or combat units?

I couldn't play a firearms based skirmish game with an 'I go, U go' turn structure, nor could I recommend it. The idea just falls flat on its face.

I did use to enjoy Necromunda back in the day, but games I've played since just make it look terrible.

Sinji wrote:
Since finding this post I have downloaded the rules and like the looks of them. My mate and I are going to start up I'm going to run my DV Cultists and some guardsman and he is going to run some marauders from WHFB. I'm looking forward to it.

I'm considering running House Van Sarr (I think thats them) is it better focus on shooty units or combat units?

I never played Van Saar, but they get more shooty tech I believe. Always worth having a balance in your gang, but Goliaths (good match with Marauder models) tended toward H2H whereas Van Saar tended toward shooty. A lot of that was down to models available, but also the weapon costs.

Riquende wrote:
I couldn't play a firearms based skirmish game with an 'I go, U go' turn structure, nor could I recommend it. The idea just falls flat on its face.

I did use to enjoy Necromunda back in the day, but games I've played since just make it look terrible.

This is right on the money.

Riquende wrote:
I couldn't play a firearms based skirmish game with an 'I go, U go' turn structure, nor could I recommend it. The idea just falls flat on its face.

I did use to enjoy Necromunda back in the day, but games I've played since just make it look terrible.

Why do you feel the idea falls flat on it's face? Malifaux has plenty of firearms and ranged attacks and the game uses an I go, You go activation sequence, and it works great.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Riquende wrote:
I couldn't play a firearms based skirmish game with an 'I go, U go' turn structure, nor could I recommend it. The idea just falls flat on its face.

I did use to enjoy Necromunda back in the day, but games I've played since just make it look terrible.

Why do you feel the idea falls flat on it's face? Malifaux has plenty of firearms and ranged attacks and the game uses an I go, You go activation sequence, and it works great.

I haven't played Malifaux, but don't the card flips put a wide unknown into game play?

 MisterMoon wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Riquende wrote:
I couldn't play a firearms based skirmish game with an 'I go, U go' turn structure, nor could I recommend it. The idea just falls flat on its face.

I did use to enjoy Necromunda back in the day, but games I've played since just make it look terrible.

Why do you feel the idea falls flat on it's face? Malifaux has plenty of firearms and ranged attacks and the game uses an I go, You go activation sequence, and it works great.

I haven't played Malifaux, but don't the card flips put a wide unknown into game play?

You mean like dice?

Malifaux is far less luck driven because of its hand management aspects, too. You can mitigate poor flips multiple ways.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Riquende wrote:
I couldn't play a firearms based skirmish game with an 'I go, U go' turn structure, nor could I recommend it. The idea just falls flat on its face.

I did use to enjoy Necromunda back in the day, but games I've played since just make it look terrible.

Why do you feel the idea falls flat on it's face? Malifaux has plenty of firearms and ranged attacks and the game uses an I go, You go activation sequence, and it works great.

No it doesn't.

Malifaux uses alternated activations not I go U go... Unless I'm completely wrong in my interpretation of what I go U go is supposed to mean...

Regardless, given that Necromunda is a vastly successful and much-loved system, and that a lot of wargames/skirmish games are I Go U Go, the assertion that the whole idea 'falls flat on its face' is faintly hilarious. You mean 'I don't like that style of game' which is different to 'it doesn't work at all'.

MisterMoon wrote:I haven't played Malifaux, but don't the card flips put a wide unknown into game play?

No more than dice lol. Models have stats to add to the card flips, you can cheat from your hand, you can spend a soulstone to flip a card and add it to the previous card, people get to flip multiple cards at once and take whichever one they want, or taking the lowest (in the case of a negative twist on something). There are plenty of ways to make the card flips less "random". Also the deck has 54 cards in it (like a normal deck +2 jokers), which leaves for far less random play than a dice that isn't constrained by a specific number lol Yes you may only roll 1d6, but everytime you roll, you reset the odds of it rolling something else. If I flip an ace, and I have no aces in my 6 card hand, then I know that I have a 3/47 chance of flipping another ace. And that number gets smaller and smaller as you play through a turn.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Why do you feel the idea falls flat on it's face? Malifaux has plenty of firearms and ranged attacks and the game uses an I go, You go activation sequence, and it works great.

No it doesn't.

Malifaux uses alternated activations not I go U go... Unless I'm completely wrong in my interpretation of what I go U go is supposed to mean...

I was always taught that I go you go is for games like Malifaux, Brushfire, etc... where you activate a squad, take care of it's action then your opponent does the same, until you're all done, and then you end the turn. In 40k, a player's turn consists of their movement phase, shooting phase, and assault phase and then it becomes your opponent's turn.

 Alfndrate wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Why do you feel the idea falls flat on it's face? Malifaux has plenty of firearms and ranged attacks and the game uses an I go, You go activation sequence, and it works great.

No it doesn't.

Malifaux uses alternated activations not I go U go... Unless I'm completely wrong in my interpretation of what I go U go is supposed to mean...

I was always taught that I go you go is for games like Malifaux, Brushfire, etc... where you activate a squad, take care of it's action then your opponent does the same, until you're all done, and then you end the turn. In 40k, a player's turn consists of their movement phase, shooting phase, and assault phase and then it becomes your opponent's turn.

Nah, I always thought that I go U go meant that I activate all my stuff, then my opponent activates all his stuff, like 40K or WHFB or WMH.

I always heard the type of activation in Malifaux and Dystopian Wars described as alternating activations.

I've heard it referred to that as well... perhaps different strokes?

 Alfndrate wrote:

I was always taught that I go you go is for games like Malifaux, Brushfire, etc... where you activate a squad, take care of it's action then your opponent does the same, until you're all done, and then you end the turn. In 40k, a player's turn consists of their movement phase, shooting phase, and assault phase and then it becomes your opponent's turn.

Brushfire is Alternate Activations, Warhammer is IGUG.

 Cyporiean wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

I was always taught that I go you go is for games like Malifaux, Brushfire, etc... where you activate a squad, take care of it's action then your opponent does the same, until you're all done, and then you end the turn. In 40k, a player's turn consists of their movement phase, shooting phase, and assault phase and then it becomes your opponent's turn.

Brushfire is Alternate Activations, Warhammer is IGUG.

>_< You know what now that I'm sitting here thinking about what I say during Malifaux demos, I say, "Malifaux uses an Alternative Activation system, where instead of I go, you go, I pick a model, go through all of it's actions, and then hand it over to you."

It's not even that early here anymore Sorry all D:

 Cyporiean wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

I was always taught that I go you go is for games like Malifaux, Brushfire, etc... where you activate a squad, take care of it's action then your opponent does the same, until you're all done, and then you end the turn. In 40k, a player's turn consists of their movement phase, shooting phase, and assault phase and then it becomes your opponent's turn.

Brushfire is Alternate Activations, Warhammer is IGUG.

That's how I see it. Sorry for confusing the issue!

Regardless, given that Necromunda is a vastly successful and much-loved system, and that a lot of wargames/skirmish games are I Go U Go, the assertion that the whole idea 'falls flat on its face' is faintly hilarious. You mean 'I don't like that style of game' which is different to 'it doesn't work at all'.

No, my assertion is definitely "It doesn't work at all" for certain types of game, ranged combat skirmish being a particular type. I should clarify that I'm only talking about 'pure' IGUG. For example, Infinity is technically IGUG but has a reaction system to simulate the combat it's trying to represent.

I'm actually struggling to think of a skirmish game I've played recently that is pure IGUG, although I don't doubt they do exist. Can you name one?

Riquende wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

I was always taught that I go you go is for games like Malifaux, Brushfire, etc... where you activate a squad, take care of it's action then your opponent does the same, until you're all done, and then you end the turn. In 40k, a player's turn consists of their movement phase, shooting phase, and assault phase and then it becomes your opponent's turn.

Brushfire is Alternate Activations, Warhammer is IGUG.

That's how I see it. Sorry for confusing the issue!

Regardless, given that Necromunda is a vastly successful and much-loved system, and that a lot of wargames/skirmish games are I Go U Go, the assertion that the whole idea 'falls flat on its face' is faintly hilarious. You mean 'I don't like that style of game' which is different to 'it doesn't work at all'.

No, my assertion is definitely "It doesn't work at all" for certain types of game, ranged combat skirmish being a particular type. I should clarify that I'm only talking about 'pure' IGUG. For example, Infinity is technically IGUG but has a reaction system to simulate the combat it's trying to represent.

I'm actually struggling to think of a skirmish game I've played recently that is pure IGUG, although I don't doubt they do exist. Can you name one?

Warmachine and Hordes is an IGUG skirmish game with firearms, or when you say skirmish you don't mean squads, you mean practically down to individual models.

Specifically Necromunda scale. 6-12 guys, no squad cohesion, that sort of thing.

Riquende wrote:
Specifically Necromunda scale. 6-12 guys, no squad cohesion, that sort of thing.

I don't know of any that are that small and are IGUG

Riquende wrote:
No, my assertion is definitely "It doesn't work at all" for certain types of game, ranged combat skirmish being a particular type.

In which case you're posting opinion as fact. "It doesn't work at all" is your opinion, not a fact. "I don't think it works at all" is a fact - that's your experience of the game mechanic and I cannot change that by my opinion. Sorry to get all 'grammar lesson' but posting opinions as fact just leads to "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!" back-and-forth arguments rather than discussions. Hence why I changed my post to include 'in my opinion' as I fell into that trap myself earlier.

Fair enough, it's definitely my opinion. Am I supposed to not also believe it to be true, and therefore a fact?

Besides, "It doesn't work at all" are your words, not mine. I was clarifying that my opinion definitely wasn't "I don't like it" as you were saying, but I do in fact believe that structurally it completely fails to convey the feel of the combat it purports to simulate, hence it falling flat on its face (my words which you seemed to find somewhat funny before, so I'm repeating them as it seems you need a good laugh).

Have you checked out Wild West Exodus on Kickstarter? My friends and I have been playing the prerelease rules and think it will replace 40k for us.

Noir wrote:

 MisterMoon wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
@ MisterMoon: The term cinematic battles was thrown in the 6th ed main rulebook and they mentioned it in WD and on their site during release of 6th IIRC.

No, not that part, the part where they say, "we aren't a games company, we are a hobby or miniatures company," or words to that effect, and with proper context. People throw this out there a lot, but I've never read it anywhere official. The rules supporting cinematic battles seems to just be marketing fluff...

Chapter House lawsuit. Do you need more, then that?

I'm familiar with that lawsuit, but I'd want some kind of transcript to read, so I can put it in appropriate context. With the regularity that I hear it from folks, especially in a negative context towards GW, you'd think it's in print somewhere. Perhaps as a mission statement chiseled on the front of the GW HQ.

That said, and this is pure speculation... If it was mentioned in that lawsuit, then it was said to win that law suit- and potentially, for no other reason. I can attest to my private business experience, that corporate moguls will say all kinds of craziness in a court of law to ensure that they win... and they get away with it all the time.

Riquende wrote:
Fair enough, it's definitely my opinion. Am I supposed to not also believe it to be true, and therefore a fact?

Besides, "It doesn't work at all" are your words, not mine. I was clarifying that my opinion definitely wasn't "I don't like it" as you were saying, but I do in fact believe that structurally it completely fails to convey the feel of the combat it purports to simulate, hence it falling flat on its face (my words which you seemed to find somewhat funny before, so I'm repeating them as it seems you need a good laugh).

A fact is true for everyone. An opinion isn't. Your opinion itself is a fact, but the view expressed by your opinion isn't a fact. Keeping up?