Update 2024-03-27: Greatly expanded the "Samples" page and renamed it to "Glossary".
Update 2024-04-04: Added 5 million mid-2011 posts from the k47 post dump. Browse (mostly) them here.
Update 2024-04-07: Added ~400 October 2003 posts from 4chan.net. Browse them here.

Welcome to Oldfriend Archive, the official 4chan archive of the NSA. Hosting ~170M text-only 2003-2014 4chan posts (mostly 2006-2008).
[9 / 3 / ?]

No.14781872 View ViewReplyOriginalReport
The idea of two forces being equal in a game of 40k is seriously flawed and silly. It is the most unrealistic thing about it, or any game in my opinion. Of course we have to have some sort of fairness, or the game is no fun for one half. But what if, what if we expanded the span of the game a bit.

What if we had a risk like game of 40k. Where there is a campaign map, and we keep track of what units and models are where.

We select our parts of the map, and put out where our different units are. There are different types of tiles, with things like manufactorums, or cities.

Each player on their turn deciding where every unit is moving, and in the case of unitys moving to enemy tiles, battles insue.

Battles would be simply, games of 40k, with the two forces colliding being the armies of the two players. You moves two vendettas into the tile with a carnifex and 10 gaunts? Thats your game, two vendettas vs a carnifex and 10 gaunts. Winner takes the tile.

Units that are lost during a battle would have a chance to be either gone for good, or placed back on the board on the command or a city or something like that representing them being rehealed. Winners having a higher chance of their units being healed.

Units that survive battles would have a chance to gain veteran abilities. Winners having a higher chance of their units gaining veteran abilities.

I'd think more into it, but I want to see what /tg/ thinks of it in just this rough stage.