| ordinarybass | 21 Nov 2011 11:09 a.m. PST |
At our recent club meeting I ran a game of 2nd edition 40k. A brief battle report along with my thoughts on the system and how it compares to my favored rulesets. link As always the pics blow up nicely, so feel free to click and enjoy the grim-darkness up close! |
| PatrickWR | 21 Nov 2011 11:41 a.m. PST |
Here's my favorite pic from that game. Now **that's** a flamethrower template!!
|
| Space Monkey | 21 Nov 2011 12:14 p.m. PST |
Good stuff! Nice terrain… and I think those are the first Imperial Guard I've seen done up in red. What would happen if you just ignored the unit coherency rules in smaller battles like that? |
| ordinarybass | 21 Nov 2011 3:25 p.m. PST |
Thanks,
I can only take credit for the trees and buildings in the grassland pic (on the blog) the tables were store tables and the buildings were from another member. As for coherrency, it probably wouldn't make much difference. There's not much -beyond a bit of cover- to be gained by splitting your troops up and coherrency helps keep things organized. Coherrency and other squad-based rules I like. My problem was more with the skirmish-esque' rules like man v man close combat rather than squad v squad and how when you jump a squad with jet packs every single model has to test for scatter every single time! |
| Farstar | 21 Nov 2011 4:09 p.m. PST |
Love the old flamer templates, back when they came in three sizes. Losing that bit of flavor was one of the things that put me off of 40k. |
| billthecat | 21 Nov 2011 4:22 p.m. PST |
Ah, back when 40K was still wacky and fun (but not as wacky or fun as first edition).
But why are the gaurdsmen all bunched up like that? Serves 'em right. |
| Space Monkey | 21 Nov 2011 4:47 p.m. PST |
My problem was more with the skirmish-esque' rules Ah… OK, I'm interested in the opposite… getting the 'squad-based' out of it to make it more skirmish… which I suppose leads to Necromunda. |
| nvdoyle | 21 Nov 2011 6:27 p.m. PST |
getting the 'squad-based' out of it to make it more skirmish… which I suppose leads to Necromunda. This, I maintain, is not a bad thing. Pretty soon you'll be looking at In The Emperor's Name…  |
| PygmaelionAgain | 21 Nov 2011 7:21 p.m. PST |
I applaud your efforts! Nice battle report, good commentary on rulesets then and now, and a top notch job on the pictures. |
| Space Monkey | 21 Nov 2011 8:36 p.m. PST |
Pretty soon you'll be looking at In The Emperor's Name… I'm already looking at it. We just play the occasional game of Rogue Trader because it's drenched in the wackness. |
| ordinarybass | 22 Nov 2011 6:50 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the comments folks. Funny that ITEN was mentioned. We tried it a few weeks ago and it is on the slate for our next club meeting, a "Skirmish night" featuring Song of Blades and In The Emperor's Name. As for True Skirmish vs Squad, I like both, but I like them for different things. For something like WH40k, I prefer squad-based rules whenever possible to enable lots of troops on the table in a reasonable amount of time. I prefer to keep the skirmish'ish rules for small (8-15 figs a side) skirmish games where there are few enough figs that it's fine to have them all doing their own thing. |
| AndrewGPaul | 23 Nov 2011 2:33 a.m. PST |
ITEN's good enough, but it's in dire need of a rewrite. Once you figure out what the author meant, not what he wrote, it's fun. A bit simplistic and lacking in flavour for the scale of the game, though. One of my fellow club members has expanded the psychic rules, and another is working his way through the weapons lists. As for your 2nd edition games, ordinarybass, at 750 points you might be better taking regular Imperial Guard squads with a heavy weapons team, rather than dedicated Heavy Weapons squads; remember, you can detach the weapon team from the squad to provide supporting fire, and the resulting 8-man infantry squads aren't so unwieldy. |
