What size of game do you expect to be playing?
The
40K equivalent of 1500-1800 points. 10-15 units and a mix of unit types
Smaller games, more squad or skirmish focused
Big Apoc type games
Other
I prefer to play a normal
40K size game, although I have played and enjoyed Necromunda. I've never played Apoc, that's what Epic was for!
How long do you expect your chosen game type to last?
Up to 60 minutes
Up to 90 minutes
Up to 120 minutes
OtherUp to to 2 hours is about right
What are your preferred game mechanics?
- Player Interaction
I go, you go like 40K today
Alternating unit activation
An order or command system
OtherAlthough IGOUGO is the most popular method I think that an alternate activation system is better, preferably incorporating some sort of rudimentary orders system. This is the method that 2nd ed Epic used which for me, along with Blood Bowl and Man O' War (which also used alternate activation iirc), is the best game
GW ever produced, although you did need two tables to play it on, one for the actual game and another for the unit cards.
- How should damage be represented?
Model removal and subsequent unit effectiveness decline
Simple damage accumulation until breaking point or destruction
Damage accumulation with a stat drop at one level then destruction at the next
OtherA model removal system with subsequent lost of effectiveness is the best for this, I'm with LH on the fact that simple damage accumulation makes no sense. A damage accumulation with loss of unit effectiveness but no model removal works best were units are ranked up, such as fantasy, Ancients and Napoleonics were it can be assumed that 1 model is equivalent to x real blokes, but does not work in a company level game were each model is an individual.
How should models behave in a unit?
Infantry units should act move, fire and attack as a whole. The individual models and their positions are not important
The individual models should all have their own LOS, ability to fire or not and attack or not depending on position
The position of the unit leader is important for range, LOS etc. but not the other models
OtherI feel that all models should be able to behave to an extent as individuals. They should remain as a unit and maintain coherency but should be able to select their own targets. I think it is ridiculous in
40K that the bloke with the lascannon has to vaporise a Grot just because the blokes with bolt guns are shooting at that unit, by the same token a trained infantryman would not waste ammunition shooting at a tank with small arms just because the bloke with the anti tank weapon is. It is the future, surely command and control and fire control systems have moved on from the middle ages! Also anyone who has ever done any form of infantry training knows that as a section commander you give individual fire orders to your section. As a caveat I was in the Signals so proper infantry probably do it differently (and better!). Maybe a combination of the last two points could work where the squad leader has to have LoS to the target to be able to give the order to the relevant model (who obviously will also need LoS).
While I'm on the subject LoS I don't think GW's true LoS works. It's fine for buildings and things like that but for me just doesn't work in area terrain, especially woods as they tend to be representative rather than an actual depiction of how many trees there are in there. For example if you use woods with movable trees (such as the Battlefield in a Box sets) then if you move the trees to get a model in, a tank or a
WH unit for example, then you change the LoS. They had it right in previous editions so I don't know why they changed it.
How do you feel about game background (fluff)?
It is very important to have a fully fleshed out background for the game
A rough background is required to set the scene only
It is not important, the game rules are the important thing
OtherFluff is important as it at least gives players an idea of why everyone is so intent on kicking seven shades out of each other but isn't the be all and end all.
How important are scenario or objective driven games?
Not important – simple stand up fights are enough
A mix of game types should be part of the game
Very important, all games should be scenario or objective driven. The game should tell a story.
OtherObjectives are vital to a game as it will, or at least should, force a player to have to come up with a coherent strategy to achieve the objective. Without objectives players would just sit in their deployment zones slugging it out or wade across the board en masse depending on the characteristic of their army. Objectives should be interesting rather than just a simple marker on the board, I think most games fall down on this, FoW and
40K both tend to fall into this trap although FoW does put a bit more effort in. As to how to make objectives more interesting I'm not sure, but there again I'm not a games developer.
On a final note, as others have said on other threads, I'm just not excited about 6th ed. I played 2nd and 3rd ed to death, played quite a bit of 4th ed but 5th ed I would be highly suprised if I have played more than 30 games over its life.
Login
