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.

I have been testing out a different way of playing 40k and I wanted to share it with people.

I was frustrated with the huge number of models required to play. For me, it doesn't do anything other than make the game more tedious. It also makes buying models feel like a bit of a waste, because a $50 purchase doesn't really change your army that much.

So my friend and I decided to play a game using a modified version of the old rules (4th edition). We started with the abstract concept that a single model would represent an entire squad, and we worked from there. Some spots were a little rough, but by the end of the day, we'd written down a list of house rules for every scenario we encountered in our game.

Here's what we did:

Each unit was represented by one model on the table.

Each player got a copy of their opponent's army list, along with a simple description of the each model, and which squad they represent (Bolter marine for a tac squad 1, beaky marine for tac squad 2, veteran sergeant w/ chain sword and bolt pistol for assault squad, rocket launcher marine for devastator squad, flamer marine for command squad with 4 flamers, etc.).

Each unit had a disposable cup full of bingo counters.

Each model type in the unit was represented by a different colored bingo counter. For example, yellow for flamer, blue for rocket launcher, green for bolters, and red for the veteran and all his wargear.

We had a gentleman's agreement to not make squads too diverse. No "ten individual model" shenanigans like nob bikers or whatnot.

Range was measured to and from the lone model representing the squad on the table.

For cover saves, the entire unit got cover if any part of the model's base was in cover. Otherwise, none of them did.

Whenever a unit suffered wounds, we'd remove casualties by drawing chips out of the cup at random.

For multi-wound models, we'd record the number of times that color of chip was drawn. For instance, if a model type had two wounds and it was being represented by a red counter, we'd remove one chip from the cup for every two red chips drawn. The rest would be replaced. If only one chip was drawn (or if there's only one of that chip type in the cup), we'd record it as a wound by putting a die next to the model, and put the chip back in the cup.

For mixed fire strength and mixed toughness, the defending player would allocate shots after he drew chips out of the cup.

For line of sight through an assault, we decided that if the line of fire came within 2" of any model involved in the assault, then the assault blocked line of sight.*

Every model fought in every assault.

For multiple assaults, a unit could participate in an assault if it was in base to base contact with any model involved in the assault - friend or foe. It would, of course, direct all its attacks at an enemy involved in the assault.

For template weapons, we decided that flamers and heavy flamers would cause 2d6 hits, minus 1 for every full inch between the target and the firing unit. But they had a max range of 9".

Small blast templates caused d6-3 hits, and do not scatter.

Large blast templates caused 2d6-5 hits, and do not scatter (we thought about this for a while, area of a large blast is more than double the area of a small blast).

I had an orbital strike in my army list, so we had to come up with a rule to simulate extreme inaccuracy. We decided to use the 2d6-5 rule, but make it miss unless it caused at least 3 hits (so only rolls of an 8 or higher were effective).

It was a lot of house rules, but for us, it made a huge difference in how fun the game is. It let us play a 2000 point game with only about fifteen models per side. It cut down on the amount of time measuring and moving models. Figuring out how many of what kind of chips there were in each cup was a bit of a pain, and a lot of time saved moving was wasted counting chips at first. But we got the hang of it eventually. The random wounding made things crazy and actually pretty exciting.

EDIT: Probably the best part about this whole experience for me was that I feel like I could go buy a box or two of tyranids and have a complete army ready to go in very little time. Or I could buy a box of five models that you can build two different ways, and expand in two directions at once. For the first time in a long time, I'm actually excited to go buy a box of GW models.

*we spent a lot of time figuring out the line of sight through assault thing. It seems small, but it's really easy to screen a single model from another single model when a 5" diameter circle is in the way. Theoretically, it could make horde armies a bit of a nightmare. I haven't tried that yet, so I don't know.

It sounds kind of interesting actually. I'd be tempted to try this out with some of my friends who lack a lot of models. It would also allow play on a much smaller surface as well for 'on the go' mode. The only thing I'd find confusing/time bogging is the different sorts of chips or indicators you would need for some armies.

Orks, for example, would be both easy and nervewracking at the same time. I'd need a lot of chips/markers for my large mobs,. The easy bit would be that Ork armies are pretty 'bland' in the wargear department, meaning I wouldn't have to worry too much about the different TYPES of chips/markers I'd need. Marines/IG on the other hand...good lord. I'd feel very bad for them XD

I could see this being a rather decent mode for new players or people who just can't afford many models. But, it really isn't going to be as fun (to me) than playing with a full field of guys. While others may hate moving models...I find a sort of joy in moving my hoard across the battlefield :p

Edit: In a way, it feels like old RPG/RTS games back on the PC where an entire army or squad was represented by just 1 guy on the map. It's genuinely an interesting concept.

Edit2: I also make a motion to dub this varient: Budget Hammer!

Edit3: I also sort of like this due to it actually fixes something. It fixes assaults a bit. Overwatch won't hurt as bad because the units aren't being 'chipped' from the front. So random ranges don't hurt so bad because your 8 inch range doesn't suddenly become 10 or more, depending on how strong their overwatch was. As an Ork player, me likes!

I like this idea and may have to steal it.

In larger point games like the example you gave with 15 models on each side is there ever any confusion on which cup of chips goes to which unit?

Graxous wrote:
I like this idea and may have to steal it.

In larger point games like the example you gave with 15 models on each side is there ever any confusion on which cup of chips goes to which unit?

I'd figure they might keep the cups close to whom they belong too, or mark them properly somehow. I think the cups might be a hindrance in the end, but they probably are the best that works for this type of method. I'd probably mark the cup with numbers, then place small slips of paper under each model with the number matching the cup.

This sounds very similar to how Kings of War seems to streamline large unit combat; turn large units into, effectively, multi-wound creatures.

That said, it sounds like a good way of trimming the game down again.

This sounds a lot like Epic, actually, have you tried digging up those rules?

(My approach to the same problem was to start trying to work out more effective skirmish rules; I've hit on a pretty solid setup using the Mordheim framework that I'm working on fleshing out at present)

I had a similar idea to those using gundams. 1 single gundam could be outfitted with multiple weapons, like a squad. and then would have 1 wound per squad member so ..1 gundam would have 10 wounds and fire as though it had 8 bolters, 1 rocket launcher and one heavy flamer(if that's the load out you took)

I never got a chance to test it in anyway though.

Actual models on the table have significant meaning. They provide blos, block path, score objectives.

For example, why would i need a unit of grots if they're just one model and you can go around them any time and they don't provide cover? Why would anyone field a bauble wrap unit if it can't actually bauble wrap? And there's a number of such units.

How is a mob of orks supposed to controle the board if it can't even cover a few objectives, can't multicharge and can't position the models the way my characters could avoid being killed early on (random for your system).

How are different armor saves resolved with just one cup?


See, i mean it's a nice idea but it clearly won't work for larger squads. Why not play killteam than?

 koooaei wrote:
Actual models on the table have significant meaning. They provide blos, block path, score objectives.

For example, why would i need a unit of grots if they're just one model and you can go around them any time and they don't provide cover? Why would anyone field a bauble wrap unit if it can't actually bauble wrap? And there's a number of such units.

How is a mob of orks supposed to controle the board if it can't even cover a few objectives, can't multicharge and can't position the models the way my characters could avoid being killed early on (random for your system).

How are different armor saves resolved with just one cup?


See, i mean it's a nice idea but it clearly won't work for larger squads. Why not play killteam than?

I think that this is where this mode vs normal warhammer 40k will shine. While this mode reduces those aspects, it allows two beginner players to try a game out with fully equipped squads despite not owning a crapton of models just yet. It isn't perfect, but it gets them games with one another and learning general understanding.

This mode is better suited for smaller, elite armies. Orks and Nids don't really benefit as well from this due to their strengths being board control with models. But it could still allow you to test how a mob of X dudes works out without needing to shell out $80 for all the models first.

As for the armor saves, he did mention that the guys equipped different had different colored markers, so if you draw out one of those markers, you allot wounds to each separate. Example would be you have a Chapter Master with a 2+ armor save (no idea if they can have that, but just accept it for the example). You put a red token into the cup to represent him. Then, your other 3+ marines would be yellow tokens. If his unit suffers 3 wounds, you draw 3 random tokens from their squad cup. If you pulled the red token and 2 yellow tokens, you then decide which wounds go on whom. So if out of those 3 wounds, one is AP 2, you allocate that wound to one yellow token marine, then allocate the other wounds to either the yellow or red token until the wound pool is empty.

Graxous wrote:
I like this idea and may have to steal it.

In larger point games like the example you gave with 15 models on each side is there ever any confusion on which cup of chips goes to which unit?

We kept the cups near the model that they corresponded to. There was still a little room for confusion but we managed to keep thinks straight. We'll probably label the cups with a sharpie next time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This sounds a lot like Epic, actually, have you tried digging up those rules?

(My approach to the same problem was to start trying to work out more effective skirmish rules; I've hit on a pretty solid setup using the Mordheim framework that I'm working on fleshing out at present)

I haven't tried epic. Sounds interesting.

Another project I started working on a while back was to make custom rules to make a single battleforce feel more substantive, and balanced for play against other battleforces. But before I got very far with that project, they redesigned a couple of battleforces and I just decided to give up. It wouldn't have given new players much of a feel for the game anyway, because it was more standalone.

 koooaei wrote:
Actual models on the table have significant meaning. They provide blos, block path, score objectives.

For example, why would i need a unit of grots if they're just one model and you can go around them any time and they don't provide cover? Why would anyone field a bauble wrap unit if it can't actually bauble wrap? And there's a number of such units.

How is a mob of orks supposed to controle the board if it can't even cover a few objectives, can't multicharge and can't position the models the way my characters could avoid being killed early on (random for your system).

How are different armor saves resolved with just one cup?


See, i mean it's a nice idea but it clearly won't work for larger squads. Why not play killteam than?

We'd played killteam a few times, but my friend (a daemonhunters player way back) had a hard time making a unit that could accomplish anything without breaking so many squad building guidelines that it gave other players a huge advantage in terms of scouting units.

The poster beneath you got it right. That's what we did for different armor saves. But if we did it again, I'd draw the chips out after the roll to hit and before rolling to wound. It didn't come up in our game, but you could deal with multiple toughness and instant death that way.

I'm arranging a game with a dark eldar player that became disillusioned with the game a long time ago. I'm expecting to lose quite badly, because we're going to put a lot of terrain on the table so he can screen his models. Maybe more terrain would be a good answer to your concern about wrap units? I didn't actually think that grots blocked line of sight anyway. I thought they just provided a 5+ cover save (and the grot died if you were successful) and let you reroll terrain checks because you could use them as footholds. In fact, I'm certain that intervening enemy units don't block line of sight in 4th edition, which is what we played.

I haven't played since the actual game since 5th edition, so there's probably a lot of stuff that I don't know about for 6th edition.

Now that I'm talking about it, it makes me think that I should implement targeting rules for charges. I mean, I tried it out and it was okay, but that's another thing that might just have not come up. I wasn't the one doing the charging and my friend didn't really have as many units as me. Fewer flanking options for him.