PDA

View Full Version : CoD or straight-up up 40k?



sethmac
02-08-2006, 19:28
My friends and I have been playing 4th edition after a 10 year hiatus and we have enjoyed it (although some of the rules from 2nd Edition are missed). I see a lot of people on here praising Cities of Death. We are thinking of getting the book and trying it out. So which version of 40k do you prefer and why?

TwilightOdyssey
02-08-2006, 19:33
I like em both. After playing one for a bit, it's a nice change of pace.

CoD is great, but it's nice to get out into the open an RUN, too!

x-esiv-4c
02-08-2006, 19:41
Hmmm, I think I prefer regular 40k over CoD.

Outlaw289
02-08-2006, 19:48
Cities of death has its own rulebook, right?

Sir_Lunchalot
02-08-2006, 19:50
Cities of Death. It's close range, packed full of terrain, and focuses more on objectives. I like the playing style a lot better. granted there are a lot of armies I can't fight in CoD (marine bikers, 'nids) but for the most part CoD is way better than normal 40k. And the new plastic buildings look awesome!:chrome:

Kymar
02-08-2006, 19:56
My current favorite is CoD, the new rules bring alot of life to the game and I like the focus on infantry. Most of my normal 40k games involve alot of vehicles, especially tanks and its a welcome change.

revford
02-08-2006, 20:00
Cities ...OF DEATH! has lots of cool new ideas, well thought out scenarios that aren't just kill and win on victory points.

However I wouldn't want every game I play to be a Cities ....OF DEATH! game, it's a nice change, but it's hard work, bloody and dominated by huge scrum like mass assaults.

These are cool things, but after a while I crave room to move and shoot and the simplicity of just killing some orks from miles away.

UnRiggable
02-08-2006, 20:09
I like regular, I havent tried CoD but Cityfight sucked so y'know...

robertsjf
02-08-2006, 20:33
Depends on the type of army. If it's mechanized I'd want to play reg 40k, but after a few games of CoD I can't imagine trying to take an infantry army for regular 40k w/o being bored to tears...

idinos
02-08-2006, 21:20
I prefer straight 40k but with some of the LoS rules from Cities of Death, especially the one which eliminates lower area terrain if you are shooting from higher up.

Baneboss
02-08-2006, 22:04
If you dont like mass assaults in CoD just dont play omega missions but alpha.

I think lack of stand and shoot or some sort of overwatch is the biggest problem of 40k. If not i would be satisfied if units that see enemy at the start of the turn can assault.

emperorpenguin
02-08-2006, 22:10
Cities of Death. I loved cityfight too, there's just something about urban warfare, images of Stalingrad, Arnhem etc

Snakebite
02-08-2006, 22:12
I voted for Cities of Death. It has so much more to offer than "regular" 40K.

Kriegsherr
02-08-2006, 22:20
CoD.... more action, more blood, less "army X needs tactic Y".

Granted mechanized elements loose some of their importance, but Mission objectives and static defenses get more important which is a good thing.

wasabi
02-08-2006, 23:27
I really liike the urban style warfar CoD offers. However I would never completly abandon the stanard 40k as CoD is just a suplement, and alternative terrain types always add fun to the game.

cailus
03-08-2006, 00:45
Other than the stratagems, CoD is just normal 40K to me. I play with lots of terrain anyway and find the recommended terrain for CoD to be rather pathetic for Alpha and Gamma level games.

TwilightOdyssey
03-08-2006, 13:57
Other than the stratagems, CoD is just normal 40K to me. I play with lots of terrain anyway and find the recommended terrain for CoD to be rather pathetic for Alpha and Gamma level games.
I agree with this. I wonder where that idea came from. Was it based purely on the amount of terrain they thought players would buy at first? What happened to making your own buildings?!

I live in one of the most "major" cities in the world, and I can tell you for a fact ... there is no open space here!! I built my city terrain with this concept in mind, but taken to the extreme ... I find it hard to believe that 38,000 years from now cities will have more room than they do today!!!

Inq. Veltane
03-08-2006, 14:58
Well it depends on the city, I live in London and there is actually a surprising about of open space in a lot of areas - certainly a lot more than in, say, New York. Not only do you have major roads which can easily be 12" in game terms wide but there are lots of squares which can be the size of two or three NYC blocks and then there are the parks on top of that... All told central London has a lot of space between buildings and as you move out of the centre you find many areas which are even more spacious. I know that within a mile of me there are no less than four large open 'green' spaces and then numerous other quite large spaces (carparks etc.). All told cities today and in M41 are very diverse in how much open space is required to be left. Earth in 38,000 years is of course a huge hive city and as such yes, there will be little space... But other cities, particularly on 'Civilised' worlds have the potential to include open Forums, Parkland, Plazas etc. etc.

TwilightOdyssey
03-08-2006, 15:06
All true, Inq. Veltane! I just think it's implausible that there would be a city sector the equivilent of a 48" x 48" square that only has 3 buildings on it.

I have been to London most recently (in May I was a demonstrator at the London Guitar Show) and I live in NYC. So, I appreciate the comparison. I'm not against variety ... I just prefer the ole Blade Runner future city. :)

Ozymandiass
03-08-2006, 17:33
I voted for both. I do enjoy COD, but every game I've played has been a draw so far. Maybe its just a rethinking of my Cityfighting tactics (maybe its my Dark Eldar...). Still, COD is a nice break from standard 40k, and its so damn cool to see all the buildings set up.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Scythe
04-08-2006, 09:34
CoD is a great setting, and the doctrines also work pretty refreshing to the game. I also like the importance of height in CoD, and the difficulty troops on the floor level might have reaching the top level 12" up.

Sir_Turalyon
04-08-2006, 10:15
Cityfight. Failing that, Cities of Death.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
04-08-2006, 10:21
Personally I find cityfights jarring somehow, perhaps it is the particular terrain setups where I play though. On a 4X4 board there just isn't enough room to put huge buildings and rubble everywhere and expect to play a decent 1500 pts game, at least with some armies. I like green fields because they are easy on the eye and your models don't fall over constantly.

Lacerta
04-08-2006, 13:13
CoD...I've been playing 4th edition for a year or so now, and the only games I enjoyed were 'objective oriented' missions. I went into the game thinking it'll be like a "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down," but it ended up seeming like the latter half of "Revenge of the Sith" (just imagine my Marines in place of the Jedi).
With CoD, the game is finally what I imagined, with fighting in the streets, buildings, seeking objectives, and not worrying about VP's. I think the only people that've complained about the rules are the players who rely too much on the "shoot shoot, kill kill" instead of maneuvers and tactics.
The game I played last week was the "capture your enemy's HQ" scenario, and we played against Traitor Guard and Iron Warriors (Basilisks galore!). Our side consisted of my Blood Angels and my brother's Raven Guard armies, and we maneuvered toward the objectives while our opponents remained static. Neither side of course, achieved the objective, and the game ended in a draw, but had we played a straight 40k game, we would have lost 2:1 in VP's!
Real-life combat usually deals with achieving objectives, be it a high point or a building, which makes destroying the enemy easier later on. The narrative aspect of objectives makes playing the game so much more entertaining!

Adept
04-08-2006, 20:55
The game I played last week was the "capture your enemy's HQ" scenario, and we played against Traitor Guard and Iron Warriors (Basilisks galore!). Our side consisted of my Blood Angels and my brother's Raven Guard armies, and we maneuvered toward the objectives while our opponents remained static. Neither side of course, achieved the objective, and the game ended in a draw, but had we played a straight 40k game, we would have lost 2:1 in VP's!

So basicallly, you lost but decided to call it a draw?

Objectives work far more effectively as Victory Points, than as a stand-alone win-or-lose condition. If all you're playing for is the objective, it removes the possibility of a phyrric victory. Theres not much point in taking that bridge, or silencing that artillery, if you waste all your resources doing it.


Real-life combat usually deals with achieving objectives, be it a high point or a building, which makes destroying the enemy easier later on. The narrative aspect of objectives makes playing the game so much more entertaining!

The narrative aspect of objectives and victory points are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they work best when combined. It represents the importance of claiming the objective, but also the importance of minimising your losses and maximising those of the enemy, which is always important.

Lacerta
05-08-2006, 15:08
So basicallly, you lost but decided to call it a draw?
I still had over half my force when the game ended after turn 4, so I'd say *I* didn't lose:confused:. On the other hand, the other player on my side got mostly wiped out, although his remaining Terminators (scoring unit strength) were contesting the enemy HQ. The objective was to *take* the opponent's HQ, and if both players don't achieve it, its a draw. I'm repeating what the rules say, not my personal spin.:angel: We were much closer to our objective than our opponent, but its still a draw.

The narrative aspect of objectives and victory points are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they work best when combined. It represents the importance of claiming the objective, but also the importance of minimising your losses and maximising those of the enemy, which is always important.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thousands (perhaps millions) have died contesting objectives, be it a hill or a building, a city or an island. I doubt any of the various races care how many die to capture a planet, as long as its captured, because if the soldiers die, there's plenty more to take their place. It may not sound nice, but that's war for ya! :chrome:

Adept
05-08-2006, 21:30
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thousands (perhaps millions) have died contesting objectives, be it a hill or a building, a city or an island. I doubt any of the various races care how many die to capture a planet, as long as its captured, because if the soldiers die, there's plenty more to take their place. It may not sound nice, but that's war for ya! :chrome:

I can see it now...

"Colonel, take ten thousand men and capture this bridge."

"Yes sir."

*****

"General, I have captured the bridge!"

"Excellent, now take your force and move on to this city."

"Sorry sir, I only have fifteen men left..."

The thing of it is, giving objectives VP values doesn't reduce the need to capture said objectives, nor does it reduce the effect of narrative play. What it does is prevent ridiculous situations where six Guardsmen hold an objective in the face of sixty Orks. Giving objectives a VP value simply adds to the game. Like any 'real' general, you are then required to minimise your losses and kill as many enemies as possible. Soldiers and machines of war are expensive, finite resources. No general should willingly squander them, and allowing players to do that, but still claim a victory since they hold an objective reduces the narrative effect. it leaves players thinking "well, how does that make sense" at the end of the game, which is never a good thing.

Scythe
06-08-2006, 08:53
Tough it has to be mentioned that some forces in the 40k universe (think nids) have almost next to infinite extra troops standing close by to rush in.

Really, it depends on the acctual mission for me. I can imagine a sabotage or rescue mission being a succes even if 90% of your force gets whiped out.

Chem-Dog
06-08-2006, 12:21
Either is fine. CoD is a simple but effective variation on the standard rules buying the book, even if it's one copy between all of you, will only enhance your games.

Adept
06-08-2006, 17:40
Tough it has to be mentioned that some forces in the 40k universe (think nids) have almost next to infinite extra troops standing close by to rush in.

Really, it depends on the acctual mission for me. I can imagine a sabotage or rescue mission being a succes even if 90% of your force gets whiped out.

And thats why Alpha level missions still have a place in the game!

Seth the Dark
07-08-2006, 06:02
I prefer the standard 40k missions because CoD is just too restrictive. I mean, why would an army want to plant flags in buildings?

Yarick Zan
07-08-2006, 06:04
i find COD is great for a change. if your tired of the standard field battles and want somthing a bit spicier. i infact worked quite hard and made atleast a 4x4 board for COD. it adds alot of options.

zealousheretic
07-08-2006, 06:37
I prefer the more objective-oriented CoD missions. Being able to snatch a win from the jaws of defeat is a good thing, it prevents the game from being decided halfway through.

I find CoD to be a more interesting game in general. Armies need to be more mobile, heavy weapons require more planning in deployment, shooting tends to be closer ranged instead of primarily the exchange of heavy weapons fire, abundant cover changes what weapons and tactics work best, and the games I've played have all been brutal, with most of them close-fought, always my favorite kind of game.