Gillyfish

I am not sure whether I have been priced out as such. For 40k I have a sizeable Dark Angel army, much of which most people would refuse to play against as they are 'Legends' and on an older base size. After the effort spent painting and assembling them I don't really fancy rebasing or recollecting the army so I am basically finished with 40k as a regular game (the odd game with a willing opponent is nice to have though). My main GW focus is now the Epic range, whether it is AT, AI or LI. Epic was my original entry point for the hobby after Space Crusade, so its nice to get back to gaming on that scale. I would also echo Pacific81's comment earlier about other games; I have a couple of Frostgrave warbands, some Epic scale Carthaginians for Hail Caesar and a range of other historical figures I can use in different rulesets (Nimitz, Eisehower and Blucher would all be recommended). So I have found myself pulled away to other, often cheaper, games, which provide different challenges.

I have to be honest and say that I don't know much about Prohammer. Tell me more - maybe PM me? Overall, if it is 40K in background and models, then it would fit within the forum's remit. The broader question might be where best to discuss it.

Absolutely. Yes, in fact it's one of the examples in the original post. Yes. Both are within the 40K universe. The small scale engagement might fit the concept of a Dark Eldar raiding party rather nicely. Your views on both examples are correct. It needs to be within the 40/30K universe to fit. This makes sense, but you would probably need a complete conversion to the 40K setting. It would probably not be acceptable to have your Space Marine team playing against Lizardmen and put pictures of that on the Board, for example, although your converted Space Marine team would still be cool to see (I actually recall someone had converted marines in the colours of the Six Nations rugby teams several years ago; the ball was a melta bomb...). However, if you had two teams and an appropriately grim-dark pitchh then this would be fine, from my perspective. I am not completely familiar with these as I live in the UK, but, form what I have heard, they are set within the 40k universe, so yes, they would fit under Other Games (for rules), as would Space Crusade, Space Fleet, Ultramarine and the like. We already have Oldhammer clubs on the forum specifically for this. Yes, and would be absolutely amazing to see (hint, hint). The key thing about the above is that they are using the appropriate setting. They should all be using models that are appropriate to the setting too, whether GW, converted, or sourced from elsewhere but which fit within the setting's aesthetic. The latter is where there is a bit of a blurred line and judgement comes in as, for example, you might be able to make battletech models fit the 40k aesthetic, but you would want to ensure that that was clearly the intention (so probably a fair bit of conversion).

Welcome to the Bolter and Chainsword! There are a lot of knowledgeable people on here too, so you may well find some interesting stuff here too. Well, hopefully!

Hmm, well I have the 1st ed and HH rulesets. I will take a look later and see what i can dig up. From memory, the structure points are listed in the scenarios themselves, so there may be some additional stuff in some of the other books. However, if you are looking to create your own scenarios with structures, then I think there are several variables to consider, including the difficulty of the mission, AA opposition, as well as construction of the target and mission balance. A bit of playtesting and a willingness to swap sides would certainly help.

It's probably worth noting that friendly fire rules often feature in RPGs, but they often have a level of granularity that simply would not work in a massed battle game (even though they share a common ancestry).

Questions are fair. The point of this is to basically allow people to play games from the 40k universe (or 30k) with alternative rulesets. Stargrave is pretty miniatures agnostic as a ruleset, so if you wanted to use it as an alternative skirmish ruleset for marines vs Orks (for example) then that would not be a problem. If you were using Titanicus rules and a mix of GW, third party and Battletech models for a game, but it was still clearly Titanicus you were playing (and intended to be) that would probably be okay. If you were using the Titanicus rules and only Battletech models then that might not be (but discuss it with a mod first); that feels more like a game of Battletech with an alternative ruleset than a game of Titanicus with alternative models to me, if that makes sense. However, if those models had been converted to fit the 40/30k background then, again, that might make for a different story. That's why we have gone with descriptive examples rather than hard and fast rules. We want to support community creativity, but there's a certain amount of shared responsibility in not abusing the option that comes with it as a quid pro quo.

This basically comes back to how simulationist you want the game to be; as Brother Tyler indicated, currently the game has no 'fog of war' mechanic, nor is there any rule for, say, firing through units into another unit and inadvertently hitting a few individuals on the way through (that I can recall, anyway), partly because it might be hideously open to abuse (although the idea of screening Ork boyz with disposable grots seems entirely fitting) and partly die to rules complexity. Given all the unit special rules, this might add a fair bit to the core rules with exceptions (no, you can't fire through the tank, apart from when you can...) and so on. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that it might be suited to a different style of ruleset than the one we currently have implemented.

One Page Rules is a ruleset that we specifically had in mind with this, given that they effectively publish lists that allow you to use 40k inspired armies. We are aware that they are a popular ruleset that a lot of people use as an alternative to 10th, for example and that's a good example of the sort of thing we do want to capture; different ways of exploring the universe and playing games. Elements of BFG certainly came out of third edition Epic (if you don't count Titan Legions as third edition, but rather 2.5) where there were firepower values, etc. That mechanic certainly carried through as did the concept of blast markers (not templates), although in BFG they denoted areas of weapons' discharge and could knock down shields rather than affect morale. However, it would not surprise me if there were elements of battleship games in there too.

=][= ALLOWING NON-WARHAMMER 40,000 GAMES AS PART OF YOUR WARHAMMER 40,000 HOBBYING AT THE B&C =][= The Warhammer 40,000* hobby is a subset of the tabletop miniature wargaming hobby. The overall hobby consists of several basic elements: Modelling (including converting, assembling, and painting of gaming tables/boards, terrain, and models) Gaming (including discussion of rules, tactics, and actually playing the games) Lore (including fiction and videos) The Warhammer 40,000 hobby is very distinctive in all three of these elements, from the recognisability of the models to the rulesets to the expansive setting and its rich background. For many years, we have allowed members to use third-party models in their content here at the Bolter & Chainsword. Our only requirement has been that such models have to appear to fit in the setting through some combination of conversion and painting. To further support hobbyist creativity, we are going to widen things out a bit more. Members are now allowed to include content about/for non-Warhammer 40,000 games in their B&C content as long as the usage is clearly in furtherance of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. What does this mean? What follows is descriptive guidance to address the intent. You are expected to use your best judgment in adhering to that intent. An easy example is using non-Warhammer 40,000 games to play out games in the Warhammer 40,000 setting, such as the following: Using Grimdark Future Firefight or Stargrave in lieu of Warhammer 40,000: Kill Team Using A Billion Suns in lieu of Battlefleet Gothic Using Aliens: Another Glorious Day in the Corps in lieu of Space Hulk Using Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game in lieu of Aeronautica Imperialis Players might even be a little more creative, doing things like: Creating chess sets representing Warhammer 40,000 (sub)factions Using Warhammer 40,000 models to represent the Survivor and demons in Demon Ship Adapting the rules for The Silver Bayonet to represent battles between Inquisitors and heretics (e.g., Inq28) (most likely involving creating custom rules for various factions) Using the rules for Gaslands Refueled in lieu of Gorkamorka Using Dropzone Commander rules but Legions Imperialis models and setting, or Dropfleet Commander rules to represent 40k starship combat (you'd most likely need to source some appropriate 40 or 30K-style models though) Regardless, the models used in the game should be appropriate Warhammer 40,000 models or converted to appear as such, and narratives for models and battle/session reports should be appropriate to the Warhammer 40,000 setting. Following the above through, battle reports of games played within the 40k setting(s), but using alternative rulesets would make perfect sense on the forum. It also follows that you might explain the force composition and what that counts as in the setting and the game (so this is a tactical squad, but for the ruleset counts as X, or we used the rules for a Jade class cruiser from Dropfleet to count as the Eldar Eclipse class cruiser). There's definitely am element of common sense that needs to be used here (see below for what is not allowed) and the intention is that this should allow members reading your post to understand the forces, their composition and how the game played out. As a rule of thumb, if you realise you are writing lots about the other universe or ruleset instead of the 40k game, then it has probably gone beyond the level needed for explanation of the flow of the battle report. So what kinds of things will we definitely not allow? Again, we'll be descriptive here. Using non-Warhammer 40,000 models in a non-Warhammer 40,000 game (e.g., using Battle Tech: Gothic rules and models wouldn't be appropriate as a substitute for Adeptus Titanicus, even if you refer to those Ironclad Alliance models as the Legio Crucis and those Draconic Imperium models as the Legio Magna) Discussing rules, tactics, or strategies for non-Warhammer 40,000 games (beyond that discussion necessary to explain force composition and/or something that happens in a battle/session report)** Discussing news, rumors, or speculation about a non-Warhammer 40,000 game This content may be posted in the places where you would post the equivalent Warhammer 40,000 content. For example, if you use the Infinity rules to play a small-scale skirmish in the Warhammer 40,000 setting, you could post that in either the + KILL TEAM + forum or your blog, or both. Likewise, if you use the Hardwar rules for your battles in the Age of Darkness, you could post that in the + EPIC SCALE HORUS HERESY GAMES + forum or your blog, or both. Similarly, a project to convert some Mandalorian Super Commandos from Star Wars: Legion into a Tempestus Aquilons kill team, you could post that in your blog (preferred) with outreach topics in the + ASTRA MILITARUM / IMPERIALIS AUXILIA +, + KILL TEAM +, and + HALL OF HONOUR + forums. In cases where the game you're playing doesn't really have an analog in the stable of Games Workshop games, you can always use the + OTHER GAMES + forum, the Other Games categories in the Gallery and Downloads features, the Tactica/Homegrown Rules category in the Articles feature, and the Game Play category in the Blogs feature (depending on the type of content you're submitting). We will not be creating forums for non-Warhammer 40,000 games. Remember, the intent here is to loosen things up a bit to better support our members' enjoyment of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby (not the tabletop miniature wargaming or board gaming hobbies). The allowance for non-Warhammer 40,000 games is only when those games are used as an expression of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. In cases where it's pretty clear that someone is trying to sneak something in that doesn't meet the criteria, that content will be removed. If you have non-Warhammer 40,000 content that you would like to share here at the B&C, it's always recommended that you contact the staff beforehand to ensure that what you want to do will be allowed. If you have any questions about this update to our community rules, feel free to ask them here. The community rules will point to this topic for now, but we will update those rules as we develop better guidance based on any questions that are asked here. So please do ask! * "Warhammer 40,000" also includes the Horus Heresy setting. ** Most games have some form of online support, whether it's a Discord server, the publisher's website, or places like Board Game Geek. Hobbyists are recommended to consult such external sites for issues about non-Warhammer 40,000 games.

Yes, there are a few of us and Dr_Ruminahui has provided you with a link to the best place to find us. I had the first edition rules and then picked up the HH ruleset when Legions came out so I could use my tiny planes in different games.

Welcome - I hope you enjoy uncovering the answers to those questions.

Mod voice on: This is a thread about the Dawn of War IV computer game. I have just removed a number of off-topic posts. Please keep the thread on-topic.

Well, formations have always been a part of Epic in some form or other (no pun intended). I think the attempt to add in additional rules as per maniples in AT is a good idea when you might have one or two core formations and then detachments supplementing them (as in AT in many ways), but when you have the number of formations and units you do in LI, I do wonder about the complexity. I quite like the idea of different formation types helping you select themed forces and giving you different mixes of units. It may be that lists should be limited to X number of formations (which may have bonus rules). Additional units can then be drawn from a support section associated with that formation. So for an Astartes list that might always include the tactical entry and Rhinos and Predators (plus other units), for example, but they would not benefit from the rules associated with the formation. Certain units such as titans would always be available (subject to existing points restrictions) as support. Again, the point with the above is that it comes back to 'What is the game trying to be?' and how would list building support that look and feel. I really liked the suppression mechanics of 3rd ed Epic and Epic Armageddon. The latter, in particular, had a very clear concept of how it should 'feel' and play and what it was trying to accomplish. There are elements of several good wargames at the heart of LI, but they are confused and mixed. Personally, whilst I like the big battles, I would like something that helped bring out the differences in the way the different forces fought, which might be command and control, suppression and morale based. I would like combined arms actions and planning to be rewarded; so, if I use artillery or other fire to suppress a unit, it should make it easier to assault. Equally, high morale units might be more resistant to that kind of suppression. How do the command structures of the different forces effect the way they play? At the moment, there is the Auxilia rule about the command unit being killed and everything only being given advance. That's okay, but I am looking for something less about losing the model and more about command itself; what benefit does the command structure bring, or does having a more direct command structure bring, rather than just the disadvantages vs. the more dispersed/initiative reliant version of marines? Should that affect the formations of the Auxilia and/or their deployment?

Thanks Mazer Rackham, that is very helpful advice. Just a quick update: My players have designed characters. I now have have: An Ultramarines Librarian A Salamander Techmarine A Dark Angel Devastator A Black Templar Apothecary A Raven Guard Assault marine We may also have an Ultramarine tactical marine joining us; he's not sure as he is new to RPGs. Looks like the game will go ahead towards the tail end of September and I am busy painting up the models (and their Xenos counterparts). Amusingly, the Salamanders techmarine is a canon character (and did serve in the Deathwatch, but I don't know if that part of their background was ever published).