Time to Embrace the Horror II

[Haighus]

What games offer the best conversion possibilities of 40k to their systems? Might as well start looking around now since I've seen nothing but across the board declining game quality since 6th edition 40k dropped.

Afterlife would probably work ok- it is intended for relatively realistic combat in the near future though, so has little in the way of melee, which cuts out a good chunk of 40k. Ruleset also is still in closed beta effectively. I'm not sure in what way melee will feature in the first rule edition (but should feature in some way as melee does still happen in modern combat occasionally). Ruleset should be released soon (I have access to an early version through the Kickstarter).

Maelstrom's Edge perhaps? Also a futuristic 28mm skirmish game. Don't know what the rules are like for that one.

[Kazzigum]

Or, you know, we can just play 40k and practice some restraint. We don't have to play Apocalypse just because GW wants us to. For example, setting aside my CAD argument, I think that Kill Team is pretty tight and fair. It just needs some updated scenarios, particularly accounting for Tactical Objectives, since it was written in 6th.

[Haighus]

I will continue to play 40k I was just answering 40Kgamer's question to the best of my knowledge. I will be playing Afterlife with the Afterlife models anyway (and probably 40k with the Afterlife models too).

Kill team is fun. I want to try the tactical strike rules in the FW HH books too, they look fun.

[grimmas]

Or, you know, we can just play 40k and practice some restraint. We don't have to play Apocalypse just because GW wants us to. For example, setting aside my CAD argument, I think that Kill Team is pretty tight and fair. It just needs some updated scenarios, particularly accounting for Tactical Objectives, since it was written in 6th.

This is the way. The thing is 40K can be played at many levels if one just applies a bit of sense. 40K has only ever been a skirmish game if modified via extra rules or scenarios. Also it's never been balanced if you play unlimited. I think you are right in that you've got stop thinking about what GW wants because it isn't a person it doesn't think it's just a vehicle to make money.

All you need are some like minded people and away you go. The beauty of GW games has always been the choice and customisation available. I for one am glad they've got Apocalypse style stuff back in because that's how I played with my peers back I the nineties, big armies, big guns and carnage by that's what I like. 40K is so big and it has so many players it can be what you want.

Have a look at the Victroy is Vengence campaign in HH3 is brilliant small sides play.

[Charon]

The reason why I never liked extremely big battles and apocalypse is the player turns. If (for example) 6k points shoot at another 6k points this has a snowball effect in favor of who shot first (clearly Han!). This is somewhat mitigated in smaller games but in very big battles a good first turn is perfectly capable of deciding the game.

[grimmas]

That can certainly be the case. I've always found that getting plenty of scenery on the board mitigates that problem. In fact I've found that having plenty of scenery solves a lot of the issues with 40K. Of course having Necromunda back in the day certainly helped with this. But it isn't hard to get lots of scenery made. Though it's a bit of a lost art since GW started selling stuff and stopped doing a tutorial or two. God bless RT it really honed your scratch building skills.

[Filthy Casual]

So many games you see these days have far too little in the way of terrain, I think it should be difficult to draw more than 24" LOS and aim to set my boards up so that is the case more often than not. This helps distort the idea of what's "powerful" in the game because units have more freedom to move and shoot than intended.

Age of Sigmar is the same and its why GW have really been pushing out Scenery Kits, it really benefits from a lot more terrain than people are used to having in a game of Warhammer. This is why you get the "pile up in the middle", people aren't putting scenery down on the table as per the rules, the suggest at least one and, using the random table, more often two, pieces per 2 foot square.

- - - Updated - - -

On the note of terrain, if you can find a copy of "How to Make Wargames Terrain" by Nigel Stillman its an invaluable tome for the scenery scratch builder. The 2006 David Cross one is good too, but I'm very attached to my copy of the original.

[Charon]

While I agree that having plenty of scenery is nice, there is a huge disconnect between what you as a player feel about the amount, what the BRB says and what the enemy feels about it.

Let us go for a quick battle between a Hound and Maulerfiend heavy Khorne Daemonkin List and a Imperial guard list. So... what is the correct amount? While the Khorne player will want as much as possible the guard player will argue the opposite. The middle way is using the rules from the BRB.
It is as easy to "cheese" with terrain as it is with an army list.

[40kGamer]

I will continue to play 40k I was just answering 40Kgamer's question to the best of my knowledge. I will be playing Afterlife with the Afterlife models anyway (and probably 40k with the Afterlife models too).

Kill team is fun. I want to try the tactical strike rules in the FW HH books too, they look fun.

Thanks for the options! I'll still be playing 40k but want to branch out in case they do a complete makeover that I end up hating.

[Erik Setzer]

40K has only ever been a skirmish game if modified via extra rules or scenarios.

Sure, sure... if you ignore the first two entire editions of the game. Even if we skip Rogue Trader, 2nd edition was a skirmish-level game. The army points were the same as they are now, but a Tactical Squad, for example, would start at 300 points, before adding options. You might get a character, three squads, a walker, and a vehicle into a 2000 point army. Possibly a fourth squad if you squeezed your points!

It was when 3rd edition came out that things started changing, with the rules being simplified a lot for faster game play, and Space Marines dropping 50% in points (pretty much everything dropped in points, but that was the most noticeable drop). They still had Kill Team and Combat Patrol in the rules to allow for smaller games that weren't over way too fast. Over time, they've removed KT and CP from the rules, making KT a separate digital purchase (so over $100 to get all the rules, as opposed to the old $45 rulebook), and Space Marines have even shed another point, while 7th edition just straight up added super-heavies and fortifications to the core rules as a standard part of every game of 40K. So the game went from skirmish, to larger but still not that bad, to where it's standard to have mega models and fortresses in a game, and you can put a whole company of Marines on the table in a basic game.

I'd much prefer to send 40K back to its skirmish roots and bring Space Marine/Titan Legions back (and pretend Epic 40K never happened).