Here is a thought, gentlemen. Combine 40K with our full thrust miniatures for a 40K/full thrust campaign. The Idea. We don't have any Gothic ships to represent the races in fleet form, so using the Full Thrust fleets to represent them. We have teams of troops and naval personnel. So a team may elect to be Imperial , Marine or Guard. And elect to use NAC full thrust ships. You could then have a marine player, a guard player and an NAC player. Fleets would maneuvre on the map, dropping off a landing force to secure a planet. Opposing teams would do the same. Each planet would have sectors,given as a number on map. The team that wins most sectors on a world, playing 40K games wins the world. Worlds give refuelling/re arming resources. In game turns this means that if a team does not have starship support in the space above a world it will not get re enforcements on subsequent games,unless it owns the world outright.
Basically the campaign is over the control of planetary systems, and therefore the reasources they represent, by ground forces. That requires landing troops to secure a planet, and of course the inevitable conflint when two opposing armies find themselves on the same planet.
(Really must get my Tau army assembled)
Obviously ground forces will need navel support to protect them. That means battle fleets in orbit and space battle generated before you can land troops on an opponants planet. Not to mention intercepting invasion fleets on-route, attacking supply fleets, and the like.
All in all, sounds like an excuse to blown things up, kill people and generally cause as much mayhem as possible -- count me in ;D ;D
I don't have to run faster than the lion I only have to run faster than you
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jul 13, 2009 12:53:52 GMT
Based on past experience these things tend to work best provided the amount of reinforcements available to a player isn't so high as to result in a effective stalemate. I.e you beat a player handily, but no matter how often you win the game they can always replace their losses prior to the next game, meaning that neither player can actually beat the other in the long run.
I'm presuming you'd be looking at running this as a small number of worlds, with a handful of 40K race/alliance of races teams fighting over them.
The only other question is whether you were thinking of running this with fixed armies/fleets, or simply fixed points. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I think I'd favour points myself, purely as it removes a large element of book keeping required from running fixed lists. It also means that if you play the same players repeatidly you're not limited to using exactly the same army each time, which makes things more interesting.
All a bit in the air at the moment. basic thought was as a game generator. Each team would have a fleet player and maybe two ground force commanders, or one fleet/ground force, and another groundforce commander. This dependant on who plays and who has what miniatures. It would put a bit of structure to games and not be in a tournament environment. Yes I had thought to have fleets armies and points constant. Games would be organised in such a way that each world needed a number of games to decide ownership. Armies/fleets without supply would have less points available in games. Supply would be constituted as having a fleet presence in system with uninterupted supply lines back to a home planet (this assumes commercial ships aloowed free unmolested trade to the area ) FT games could have interdiction games to attack supply routes with commerce raiders, Destroyers and below. Dave
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jul 13, 2009 15:31:00 GMT
I guess we just need to work out who'd like to be involved and what races/fleets they've got in order to see what kind of groupings we'd be looking it.
I have a number of 40K armies, but ideally would want to play Orks (I also have Space Marines, Chaos Marines, and Eldar). Plus have some Chaos and Imperial ships for Gothic, as well as an NAC fleet and a small Kravak fleet.