...but could you run Imperial Assault with more traditional wargames terrain? Could you swap out 'spaces' for 'inches' and run it on a traditional wargame table with normal terrain instead of using card tiles and square spaces?
For casual play, obviously. I have no interest in tournaments.
I suppose you could, although you'd need to consider the LOS rules - there'll be no corners to measure to or from.
It would make playing with melee characters lame unless you kept really tight spaces.
Not really, RedSon. This would be very similar to WH40K, (boo, hiss). In 40K a LARGE number of models are close combat specialists and do very well on teh battle field.
Not really, RedSon. This would be very similar to WH40K, (boo, hiss). In 40K a LARGE number of models are close combat specialists and do very well on teh battle field.
But 40k was also built with the open battlefield in mind. IA was designed for very narrow corridors, especially compared to a 40k battlefield. Given that many abilities, like blast or cleave, which are very effective in the tight confines of IA, lose a great deal of power when units are no longer forced to clump together, which means the whole point cost needs to be reexamined.
Not really... there's as much reason to clump together on an open battlefield as there are on the standard maps. Skills like blast and cleave are used to combat adjacency bonuses like rerolls or guards.
Not really, RedSon. This would be very similar to WH40K, (boo, hiss). In 40K a LARGE number of models are close combat specialists and do very well on teh battle field.
But 40k was also built with the open battlefield in mind. IA was designed for very narrow corridors, especially compared to a 40k battlefield. Given that many abilities, like blast or cleave, which are very effective in the tight confines of IA, lose a great deal of power when units are no longer forced to clump together, which means the whole point cost needs to be reexamined.
Matlodextrin, I am going to have to disagree. Right in the 40K rulebook it states that the more terrain the better and to try to break up shooting lanes. If anything, I would say 40K has a higher percentage of close combat specialists than IA, (I haven't played in a LONG time, so, that may have changed, but, I stand by my statement).
You'd need to redefine a number of terms. What does adjacent mean? ...within 1"? ...within 2"? Coherency is a term used in most free range skirmish games. You could just say that all models in coherency with the target are considered to be adjacent. For 40k, this would mean all models within 2" of the target. What does line of sight mean? I'd suggest using 'a model is considered to have line of sight to a target model if a line can be drawn from any part of its base to any two parts of the target's base without overlapping lines'.
You'd also want to severely limit the size of the board. With the majority of Imperial Assault moves, an average hero can get from one corner of the map to any other corner using at most, 3-4 move actions. Warhammer 40k is played on a 4'x6' table. Getting from one corner to another (diagonally) would take 15 move actions (6" per move for an average foot sodier). At most, I'd say to play on a 2'x2' table. That's still 7 move actions for a hero with 5 movement (5") to get from corner to corner. You don't want to spend multiple turns moving from objective to objective. I'd almost say 18"x18" with a large amount of line of sight blocking terrain to divide the map into "rooms".
It's funny. I've been working on the opposite scenario. I'm trying to simplify the 40k rules and make a more FFG style skirmish rule set.