RTS style 40k

[jimbo1701]

Hi all.

 

Was discussing this in our gaming group a while back and The new reveals focusing on BYO scenery made me think back to it. What would people feel about 40k taking a step towards the RTS genre on the tabletop?

 

It would likely be better suited to games of apocalypse rather than 40k but could involve being able to take X amount of buildings depending on points level. Thinking dawn of war marine faction as an example, if you took say, a barracks, every turn it was on the table would allow you to reinforce or add an extra squad etc.

 

I wondered what people thought about this or if it’s something that would translate poorly to the tabletop and is better kept in the digital realm.

 

Thanks.

[Doctor Perils]

Perhaps you could make it work through custom stratagems?

 

Instinctively I'd say it might add a level of book-keeping that wouldn't be that fun, and it's yet another level of abstraction that would be confusing, but it's worth giving it a try if you wish

[Fajita Fan]

I’m sure GW would love to sell official building kits like that and the rules are stepping towards alternating activations like in Titanicus. The fight phase already has this now we just need movement and shooting and the mechanics will be closer to an RTS, you’d be able to alternate building effects too like barracks or turrets or comm systems.

 

I’d dig it.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Fajita Fan

[mughi3]

It already existed in 7th after a fashion, the entire book "stronghold assault" allowed you to bring all kinds of defensive works-walls, bunkers, giant statues, rubble, trenches, pipe relays, landing pads, bastions, defense turrets etc...for points costs 

 

 

They gave a variety of upgrades but not "re-enforced" your forces like an RTS, and honestly that is not something you want in a TT setting as it would drag the game out way to long and be incredibly irritating to your opponent to bring back units they worked really hard to destroy. 

[Brother Tyler]

When you say "RTS," the focus in my mind becomes the "real time" portion, which is definitely not something I'd like to see implemented in any tabletop miniature game. An alternating action sequence is different from a real time strategy sequence, and while the latter works fine in computer games where other controls can be implemented for balance, it wouldn't work well in a tabletop miniatures game.

 

Your question appears to focus on beneficial aspects of having terrain pieces. That concept isn't inherently bad, and it appears that GW is already doing that. The issue of game balance has to come into play, however. Unless a scenario is deliberately balanced in a way that allows for things like reinforcements, especially endless hordes, the benefits of terrain should be small. What you don't want is a "pay to win" scenario where someone can turn up with the right terrain and tons of spare units while their opponent doesn't have those resources. Imagine being on the losing end of that scenario - it wouldn't be much fun.

[Bryan Blaire]

I’d done a semi-“RTS“ concept in a store campaign back in 1999-2000, although it wasn’t RTS during the games (we just used a very slightly modified 3rd Ed ruleset) - those played normally. We did use the concept of capturing production points of varying types through battles over them, players had to choose where they were attacking, like Risk, etc. we had some different things to unlock Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support slots, or reinforce territories in a certain way, and after one guy tried to “fortress-monestary” (he still lost because there were enough capture points for people to attack from that a temporary alliance did him in), there were limits instituted on total numbers you could have on any one location.

 

It was really fun, probably the most enjoyable thing I’ve put together, but it took a LOT of work to do and with eight people playing, there was a LOT of ground to cover to try and keep things interesting for over a year.

[RandyB]

This mode of play is better suited for narrative campaign play, either modifying or supplementing the Crusade rules.

 

That is the scale at which resource gathering and production can take place without slowing down the tabletop battles. Each tabletop battle, in all of it's rounds and turns, is but a single turn at the campaign scale.

[MegaVolt87]

Sure, would be easier to add in extra beneficial terrain rules for open play in 9th ed. GW has a hard time as it is keeping matched play balanced. We don't need extra special terrain rules becoming the next detachment style mess that was in 7th ed to ruin/ sour 9th ed.

[Lord_Caerolion]

GW already has some things somewhat similar to this in AoS, like the Gloomspite's Loonshrine, which lets you bring a destroyed unit back on to the board once per game to represent reinforcements arriving from the tunnels.

[Xenith]

Bear in mind that a 40k game would represent the final skirmish/battle at the end of a round of an RTS game, as opposed to the actual base building.

 

Would you really want the first 2 turns spent collecting resources or building a barracks?

 

If the goal is to have unique buildings that do something in-game, GW is already making faction specific terrain pieces, which boost those armies accordingly.

 

One way of doing this would be to assign people X pts/turn for fortifications, which they can then purchase in the command phase and drop onto the table.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

I think you could use Dawn of War 1 as a guide line and make a very fun game mode where capturing objectives allowed you to deep strike fortifications in your deployment zone (there's even a company that sells DoW1 Space Marine terrain) and capturing the relic would allow you to summon your faction's Lord of War or something.