40K BLITZ & Battlefront

Go down

40K BLITZ & Battlefront

Post by Great Teufel on 31st March 2010, 03:15

40K BLITZ

Although the ideal point level for 40K is between 1200 and 1750, smaller point games have a lot going for them too. Games are quicker for one thing and the table less cluttered by minis. They are also however to my mind more interesting tactically. With 1500pts you can pretty much build the force you desire; assault orientated, ranged, heavy on vehicles, fast etc. with no problem or build a good 'all rounder'. With only 500 points it is a lot harder to create the ultimate, you have to make compromises and make the best use of your force because you have no points to spare.

To this end I wondered if some rules or guidelines could be created to play those 'blitz' types of games (500 to 750pts). You could just use the rules as it, but this means that some armies are penalised with a lack of choice i.e. the Necrons. Alternatively you could say that the usual composition of an army (HQ and 2 troop choices) are to be ignored, but this anything goes approach is not really what I am after. So if anybody has any thoughts about it post them here.

My initial idea was to do away with the usual army composition and say instead a legal army need only consist of at least 2 'infantry' units (whether they are elites or fast attack or whatever) and no HQ required.

Battlefront

Another idea was to play a big game in small chunks. I was thinking that each side would design a legal 1500 or 2000 point army (or more as the same figures could be used in different battles) but the actual game(s) would represent a series of smaller fights along the same battle line. This battlefront would be broken down into sectors (anything from 3 to 5) and each side would then assign their force amongst these sectors of the battlefront in any way they choose, perhaps with some guidelines as to minimum and maximum points allowed in each sector. However once assigned they could not be rearranged once the game starts. Players would keep there various sector deployments secret, but the army lists could be made public knowledge so each player has a rough idea of what he faces but not where they will face it.

Then the battle for each sector would be played out in series, on a normal sized table (6X4) but be part of one big battle that was occurring similtaniously. It would be nice if there were some rules that reflected each sides victory or loses of the various sectors, maybe the winner could decide which of the next sectors will be the next battle, or perhaps allowing one surviving unit to join a battle in an adjacent sector as a reserve, see another opponents sector force in advance or mover around which units are assigned to each sector. More ideas please!

In addition to this mini-campaign, a big campaign could be played out as above but representing may days of battle along this particular warzone. Perhaps with rules for getting extra points in reinforcement, or perhaps the winner of the first series of battles get modifiers like being able to ignore certain areas of difficult terrain, better reserve rolls, greater knowledge of the opposition, or more freedom in where their troops could initially deploy.

_________________
"I've got a lantern, a pair of waders and possibly the most fearsome piece of hand artillery in all England - what could possibly go wrong?"

Ctoan
avatar
Great Teufel
SEASONED

Posts : 236
Join date : 2009-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 40K BLITZ & Battlefront

Post by scarab on 6th April 2010, 16:27

Blitz
:i'd obviously give the idea a try , but am thinking that all of us can currently field in excess of 1000 points of painted miniatures , with my space marines i can generally field a mixture of troops even at 500-750 points , its the necrons that might benefit from the blitz idea (but then again i only have a few available unit choices).
I can understand where you are comming from as the HQ choices can be quiet expensive (especially that hive tyrant of yours) and realistically you would have the leader of your troops at every small engagement.

Battlefront :
i like the idea of this , to be able to design a scenario/campaign that has some background / reprecussions to wins/losses is right up my street.
perhaps the the battlefront could comprise 3 opposing forces , 1 defender , 1 attacker (attempting to retrieve sacred artifact) , tyrannids (devourering the world). given this idea the playing sectors would need to be larger than 3 to 5 squares . Sectors could contain , items that would benefit the controlling players
Spaceport : additional reinforcement for humanoid players ,tyranid player stopping others players from gaining that advantage
Hospital : squad replacement : additional tyrannid units/biomorphs
are a couple of ideas .
the assigned defender would be able to spend points on defense emplacements namely Bastions (not yet painted but assembeled)
points wise , we could agree a total number of points , then submit the army lists to each other , 1 supreme army commander and then detachment commanders.

I enjoy playing the game but enjoy playing a campaign that much more , so if we can come up with something then count me and the emperors finest in


avatar
scarab
NOVICE

Posts : 65
Join date : 2009-01-04
Age : 46
Location : Crawley

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 40K BLITZ & Battlefront

Post by Great Teufel on 11th April 2010, 06:30

Well the idea behind playing smaller games is that they are quicker. Changing force composition was simply to enable those small games. Don't get me wrong I like the 1000+ pt games we are now able to play, but I like the design choices that smaller games force you to take.

I have been giving Battlefront some more thought. Still no sure about all the details, but I am thinking that my version would be the focusing of a series of protracted battles along the same piece of ground. In this concept once all the battles have been fought in each sector, who won and lost each sector battle would determine where they can set up in the next round. So for example if you manage to capture (and hold) a key objective like that ruined building in the center of a table then when the next battle is fought, you have the option of setting your troops up in this forward position and would have the advantage. In contrast the loser of a battle may have his initial setup area nearer his own table edge or perhaps restricted to isolated pockets. The option could exists that if consistantly lose (or at least fail to gain ground) then you are basically get pushed off the map as you setup areas become more restricted. In which opponent has won that sector battle - but not the war! Very Happy

Another thought that occurred to me was to play these battle from the short edges to short edge of the table rather than the long ones. This would have two rather nice effects 1) the narrow width would better suit the smaller numbers of troops that would fight each battle and 2) there would be a lot more ground to capture/hold or lose (6' in fact) which would tie in with to and fro setup idea above.

However there is no reason why you shouldn't work on your 'enemy of my enemy' idea. In theory this could be fought on a single tabletop (8' x 4') we have the technology...

_________________
"I've got a lantern, a pair of waders and possibly the most fearsome piece of hand artillery in all England - what could possibly go wrong?"

Ctoan
avatar
Great Teufel
SEASONED

Posts : 236
Join date : 2009-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 40K BLITZ & Battlefront

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum