In article <fokj6q02g5h.RemoveThis@news4.newsguy.com>, mrtinj.RemoveThis@OLDsguy.com says...
> Greetings -
>
> One of my historical gaming friends wants 'us all' to get together at his
> place for a big ww2 game. And he wanted me to decide which of my ww2 forces
> I wanted to bring-over to play with - my German Panzergrenadier regiment or
> my Soviet Motor-rifle brigade. This was going to be my command for the
> game - everyone else who had painted models for the period would be bringing
> their own distinct units to play with as well.
>
> Which made me think about 40k and my difficulty getting anyone to play it.
> I haven't played 40k since I left Oregon 2 1/2 years ago - yet I'm still
> buying and painting models. I know people who play miniatures, but nobody
> does 40k. And how do I change that?
>
Do you already have more than one army? If so, you start by
offering to let potential new players use what you've got. My usual
gaming opponenets use my IG / Marine armys as they don't have their own.
That said - I've managed to get in a lot of fun games with folks who
like playing but dont' have the time / money to invest in a fully
painted 40K army of their own.
> One problem is that 40k is not easily made multi-player. It's designed as a
> competetive game system, unlike most historical games where they by their
> nature are co-operative. In historical games you have a left flank, a right
> flank and a center. And if you have three people on a side who want to
> play, each person is assigned one of the commands and off you go.
>
And you can't accomplish the exact same thing in 40K by giving
each player an '____ many points' army of their own because? If you
haven't checked out Apocalypse - it's framework is a lot more flexible
than 'standard' 40K. You might try stealing its concept of 'overall
battlefield objectives' rather than having each individual army trying
to complete their own individual objectives. That way hopefully it will
promote an overall 'team effort' to win rather than just being 3 'one on
one' matches going on at the same time.
> I would like the members of RGMW to consider desiging 1000 point 40k armies
> for their preferred armies and posting them on the NG. My critera are as
> follows:
>
> 1) Everything has to be WYSWIG and it has to be 'as is'. Built out-of the
> box with no conversions and no extra bitz bought from GW.
>
Easily done...
> 2) A maximum of five wargear / psychic powers / vehicle upgrades per army
> list. All that info has to be put on a 3x5 card to be given to the player
> when he gets his command.
Ok, this strikes me as odd. Why not just print out a roster for
each force via Army Builder (which kicks ass on toast for a boat load of
gaming systems if you haven't tried it) and hand each player a clip
board? Unless you've got very small and very clear hand writing (or a
printer that'll do 3x5 cards) - getting all the unit data, AND all the
weapons data on a 3x5 card is going to be a chore. If you want to go
smaller, you might try using Microsoft Word or Excel and creating half
page listings with all the data. (Sure, it's a bit bigger than 3x5
cards, but it should save you a lot of time and effort too.)
>
> 3) A maximum of one HQ choice and a minimum of two troop choices. You are
> allowed up to four choices to be allocated among elites, fast attack and
> heavy support - but you can not assign more than two choices to any one
> type. If you pick two elite choices, you can have one fast attack and one
> heavy support. You cannot have two elite and two heavy support.
1000 Pts - Tyranids Roster
HQ: Hive Tyrant (3#, 295 Pts)
1 Hive Tyrant @ 295 Pts
Adrenal Glands +1 In; Adrenal Glands +1 WS; Enhanced Senses +1 BS;
Extended Carapace +1 Save; Toxic Miasma; Toxin Sacs +1 St; Scything
Talons (x1); Venom Cannon; Synapse Creature; The Horror; The Shadow in
the Warp
2 Tyrant Guard @ [90] Pts
Rending Claws; Scything Talons
Troops: Gaunt Brood (13#, 78 Pts)
13 Gaunt Brood @ 78 Pts
Fleshborer
Troops: Gaunt Brood (13#, 78 Pts)
13 Gaunt Brood @ 78 Pts
Fleshborer
Troops: Genestealers (6#, 144 Pts)
6 Genestealers @ 144 Pts
Extended Carapace +1 Save; Rending Claws; Scything Talons
Heavy Support: Carnifex (1#, 175 Pts)
1 Carnifex @ 175 Pts
Adrenal Glands +1 In; Adrenal Glands +1 WS; Enhanced Senses +1 BS;
Extended Carapace +1 Save; Reinforced Chitin; Toxic Miasma; Toxin Sacs +
1 St; Scything Talons (x1); Twin-linked Devourer (x1)
Elite: Warriors (3#, 114 Pts)
3 Warriors @ 114 Pts
Enhanced Senses +1 BS; Extended Carapace +1 Save; Toxin Sacs +1
St; Rending Claws (x1); Deathspitter; Synapse Creature
Elite: Warriors (3#, 114 Pts)
3 Warriors @ 114 Pts
Enhanced Senses +1 BS; Extended Carapace +1 Save; Toxin Sacs +1
St; Rending Claws (x1); Deathspitter; Synapse Creature
Total Roster Cost: 998
Created with Army Builder
Copyright (c) 1997-2006 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. All rights reserved.
1 x HQ with routine
3 x Troops
2 x Elite
1 x Heavy
All parts straight out of the given kits, no uber-psychic powers
(shadows of the warp actually dampens other psychic powers), it fits
your restritions (and 2 whole points left over for bragging rights too!)
>
> My goal is simple - to construct playable and competetive 'small' army lists
> to serve as the single-player commands for multi-player games among non-40k
> playing wargamers. I want there to be a minium of stuff to keep track of -
> ideally, I'd like to be able to give each player two 3x5 cards with all the
> important data to play the game and understand their army.
>
Find a good printer that'll let you do 3x5 cards. It's doable,
but without a printer you'll need any army of scribes to write
everything down for you in a reasonable amount of time.
> I don't have the v4 data/codex or enough current 40k knowledge to build
> decent, competetive army lists for small games with interested but
> inexperienced gamers. If somebody looks at the available ork figures and
> goes 'kewl', I'd really like to be able to give him a 1k list that would a)
> allow him to play without feeling like he's being 'tooled' by me and b)
> isn't wasteful of both his money and his time - so many of the unit choices
> in army lists are non-competetive because they are ineffective or
> over-pointed.
The Tyrant has ranged anti-vehicle, and HTH capacity, with staying
power due to the Guards. The Fex has a mix of short ranged light anti-
vehicle / anti-troop firepower and good HTH ability and excellent
survivability as well. The Warriors are good anti-troop shooty units
providing extra Synapse coverage, and decent in HTH with the rending as
well. The Gants are generally shooty cannon-fodder and objective
holders (though they do get lucky and take out something decent from
time to time). And the stealers are flat out HTH bad mofo's!
The above list is designed to advance while firing (hopefully with some
cover providing terrain) to widdle down the opposition, and then pummel
what's left in HTH.
>
> I've got people who I can maybe get to play and raise armies. If I can only
> figure out how to get them interested without making them commit to a huge
> initial investment. And small armies designed with multi-player possibilty
> might be a place to start.
>
> Thanks in advance for any co-operation, input and advice.
>
Hope that helps - the 3x5 cards aren't a bad idea, I'd just be
concerned about legibility with lots of data crammed on a small card.
(My next wargear will be 'Cyberoptic Upgrades'.)
Myr
--
Here's a thought that might help: it's alright to take units
because you like them, even though they aren't the most
effecient for their designated role. No one is going to take
away your powergamer license if you field a less effecient
counter assault unit in your IG army.
- Qrab
RGMW FAQ:
http://www.rgmw.org
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
| T 4 | W 2 | I 4 | A 2 | LD 9 | SV 2+/5+
.