Librarium Online Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, lately a few blokes 'n me have been dreaming up a pretty wild 40K campaign. We all game a lot together, and we want to try something that is really new. That's when I had an apostrophe:

"What if the four of us (Orks, Alpha Legion, and 2 IG) played a 40K planetary assault campaign on a Fantasy Battle world?"

We would be battling each other for control of a planet occupied by two or three FB armies.

What I'm looking for is for some concept and rules help with this one. I, myself, don't play FB, but I've seen games played and they don't seem too terribly different from a 40K game. I know that there are some pretty big rules differences, but do any of you think that a rules cross-over could be reached so that we could pit Imperial Guard troops against a Dwarven army and not have it be a bogous game?

I would really value any imput, be it constructivly critical or just plain critical.

~Strength and Honor
 

·
This is for the haters...
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
nope

40k is a very shooting dominent game. Fantasy is pretty much combat dominant.

the problem comes down to the fact that any 40k army will be able to out shoot any and every FB army which will wipe them out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
That's very true, and I had considered that. I think that the difference would be made up in the numbers, though. The FB player(s) would be allowed to field almost 2x as many points as a 40K player, and seeing as how the battlefields themselves are relatively small to begin with, the FB players could close down the distance quickly.

I also had a thought about players siding with their FB counterparts (i.e. Chaos w/chaos, Imperium w/Empire, Orks w/Ogres, etc.)
 

·
The Singing Blade
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
It would work fine, as long as you could figure out the points balance right. Even points would give the 40k player a clear advantage, but twice the points on a small table might have the tables turned too far in favour of the FB player.

~ L
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,252 Posts
Personally, I don't think it would work barring some significant changes being made to both systems. For example, how will charging work? In both games, it's done in completely different phases. I also see no chance of the FB armies popping tanks (barring a Great Cannon, but then its multiple wounds rule would probably be suspended), and how about Infiltrate vs Scouts? While we're at it, Deep Strike and Armour saves would also prove to be a huge complication.

If you can get it to work, I applaud you, but since the two aren't interchangeable in the way that Warmachine and Hordes are, I'm not sure it can be done.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
481 Posts
Ya, I don't think it can be done properly, there is to much of a difference. since one uses AP values and another uses a strength modifier to determine armour saves, and to be honest, I don't think any kind of armour, beside maybe some magical armour would offer any protection to bolters, or even a chainsword

What i think you could do is use small skirmish type games, using 40k rules all around, and writing up rules for villagers and other FB troops to be used in skirmish formations like in 40k.

So for instance you could have a small squad of marine trying to infiltrate a town at night, you could set up some empire guardsmen to take watch, and have them wonder the town, using rules like they had in the old rulebook for small games, can't remember what it was called, something like killsquads or something like that.

I think that would be your best bet, because if you would use FB and 40k rules, then it wouldn't work, especially in combat, when FB units can gain combat rez from thing other than killing, when in 40k combat rez is all about the killing.
 

·
LO's unofficial Jester
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
FB armies do have accses to monstorous creatures which could 'pop' tanks.


Still it all depends on the rules you are using. For example if you said you are using Warhammer rules and have rank bonuses and so forth then IG armies might just get routed in CC (apart from the fact that the Tanks would just munch everything).


If you were using WH40K rules 10 cavalry charging a tank would be at St6 against the rear for lances.

Hmmm...I think it would be rather complicated to do and make even vaugly realistic,

First off I would use WH40K rules but say all fanatsy models either have the light infantry or Close Order Drill doctrine from the IG codex.

Next anything with a AP value adds two to it against 'primative' armour.

(so a bolter counts as AP 3)

Warhammer weapons have no AP unless they ignore armour entirely (count as power weapons or AP 2).

Magic weapons which confers a strength higher than 5 count as power weapons.

Magic Spells count as psychic powers with wizards being able to cast two spells a turn (yes this makes magic more powerful for the Fantasy player).


Fear/Terror creaures which cause fear or Terror are Fearless and the enemy counts as -1/-2 Ld in CC

As for points values I would use a rough average of x2 for WH40K armies and just see how it goes.

Just remember that it will all be a bit of fun rather than anything serious!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
FB armies do have accses to monstorous creatures which could 'pop' tanks.


Still it all depends on the rules you are using. For example if you said you are using Warhammer rules and have rank bonuses and so forth then IG armies might jut get routed in CC (apart from the fact that the Tanks would just munch everything).


If you were using WH40K rules 10 cavalry charging a tank would be at St6 against the rear for lances.

Hmmm...I think lit would be rather complicated to do and make even vaugly realistic,

First off I would use WH40K rules but say all fanatsy models either have the light infantry or Close Order Drill doctrine from the IG codex.

Next anything with a AP value adds two to it against 'primitive' armour.

(so a bolter counts as AP 3)

Warhammer weapons have no AP unless they ignore armour entirely (count as power weapons or AP 2).

Magic weapons which confers a strength higher than 5 count as power weapons.

Magic Spells count as psychic powers with wizards being able to cast two spells a turn (yes this makes magic more powerful for the Fantasy player).


Fear/Terror creatures which cause fear or Terror are Fearless and the enemy counts as -1/-2 Ld in CC

As for points values I would use a rough average of x2 for WH40K armies and just see how it goes.

Just remember that it will all be a bit of fun rather than anything serious!
This is very similar to something i saw being tested in my local club years ago. They called it "FantyK"

Anyways, I do not remember specifics, but I do remember the scenario being Necrons awaking in the middle of the Empire (As in the the Fantasy world was a tomb world). Long story short Empire won due to great cannons! Lots and lots of great cannons! However i do remember infantry being slaughtered.

The reason the cannons did so well is because they incorporated cover saves into Fantasy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
This is doable, I played my High Elves against Orks and found that it's mainly a case of playing the Fantasy army to the Fantasy rules and 40k army to their rules. Where conflicts arise just work out a solution and note it down, then try different solutions in different battles where the conflicts to playtest it and find a balance.

It's mainly a case of playesting and writing your own house rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
I think we tried something like this when I played in the 3rd edition which could still work.

Some of the rules was that 40k armies would get rerolls for armor saves against WHFB attacks since its pretty unlikely that arrows/rocks/primitive swords or whatever wouldn't have much of a chance against the high tech armor. However, armor modifiers would be used to prevent things like termies getting 2+ saves rerolled. Ie. with a guardsman who gets shot by an arrow his armor will more likely save with 5+ rerolled or 6+ rerolled vs bolts, but still would not get a save if he gets hit by str 5 or higher which would make sense.

Armor mods would be used rather than AP since no rerolls to FB armor would be enough. Ie bolter would have a modifier of -1 so something in heavy armor & shield would get a 5+ save since the shield or whatnot could have a chance of deflecting the bolt, but a str 4 shot vs a marine would have a -1, so 4+ rerolled to save.

FB armies would also just follow the unit coherency rules rather than having to pack together in a tight block to eat loads of templates & blasts.

To balance this the FB side would get 2x the points that 40k had, which isn't unreasonable since 40k gets a ton of better weapons at a way cheaper cost. Power weapons are usualy 15 points for most armies, whereas for FB the equivalent is often 50 points for the hero magic weapons.

Also if you think that 40k shooting is overpowered, have you forgotten about the FB magic phase? That will really even things out especially with 40k's lack of magic defense.

This usually resulted in most FB armies to play like a CC horde. We tried a few like this and it mostly worked out, but at the same time it was a few versions ago where there were point differences. The only things which could be an issue is mech armies and tyranids. I remember back then my carnifexes & stealers pretty much turned on god mode and swept through everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
One of the things that I have always resented about both 40K and FB is that everything and everyone strives for equality. I know that few players could be considered even amateur military historians, but if one does look at history, you'll notice that NEVER have two forces taken the field as equals. Numbers have never been equal, skill has never been equal, morale has never been equal, and certainly tactical and logistic skill has never been equal.

That being said, thank you Astynax. Those are some really good suggestions that I'm going to incorporate into my planning. I'm not looking for equality between the two genras. I expect and want desparity between forces. That makes winnning sooo much sweeter, especially when both sides have strong weaknesses which the enemy can exploit.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
71 Posts
yes in military history things are never equal, but you cant add all the things that people do in real life into a game. dice rolling is to random to be the same as real life, you cant have a commander make a rousing speech and get his troops to charge a hill and win in a game. there are to many variables in real life
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
*******Originally Posted by midnightmonty********
yes in military history things are never equal, but you cant add all the things that people do in real life into a game. dice rolling is to random to be the same as real life, you cant have a commander make a rousing speech and get his troops to charge a hill and win in a game. there are to many variables in real life
*******End Quote********

While you make a fair point (not all of the variables inherent in warfare can be represented in a game), I feel that, with the correct handling, one can account for the fair majority of the most determining and predictable. True, dice rolling makes things far, far more...um, Chaotic than in real life, but that is what characters/units have modifiers for.

It may be that you can't have a junior officer becoming Henry V in every game, but I'm sure that Ursarker Creed wouldn't have a problem getting a platoon of Kasrkin stormtroopers to, excuse the pun, storm that hill, capture the objective/kill the target, and win the game.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top