One of the questions facing Rob and me these last few weeks is: Is it actually possible for either side to win Battle for Armageddon?
No matter which variant you play the drawing bracket is pretty wide. The Imperial player has to control every single Hive, have them intact AND kill the enemy commander (Ghazghkull/Angron). If people were playing with a hardcore 40K tournament mentality it’d be very easy for the Orks/Chaos to just keep the commander on a supply line and deny the Imperials victory.
The main reason we enjoy the game so much is the background. The whole game is grounded in some of 40K’s richest fluff. Indeed, the rulebook itself is actually a story of the entire campaign penned by the mighty Bill King with a few pages of rules slipped in. The point of the game (as far as we’re concerned) is to take on the role of the army commanders rather than actually try and win.
Huh?
Well, the Ork player has just punched a hole in the Imperial defensive line. He decides to pour two whole clans through the gap, and avoid further causalities swamping the rest of the line.
It’s very unOrky. (Well, unless you’re playing with the Chaos Attacks Blood Axes). In fact, with our gaming philosophies it’s almost cheating as that’s not what the Orks would do (or “did” if you take the fluff as seriously as us).
This is the roleplay element that is present in wargames I love. Deciding what your pewter captain model will do, and not the omniscient player towering far above his miniature legions.
It’s lovely when you play games where both players have this attitude. They’re fun, and you have cool discussions over which Hive Yarrick should be in based in. This is in great contrast to tournaments, where the WAAC attitudes mean the games are decided by who’s able to fudge their inches the most get the petty rules anomalies rules in their favour.
