[the cabbage]

What percentage of games are you fighting on built up terrain using the cityfight rules?

I try to play as many as possible as all the assumptions about which units and tactics work are completely turned on their head in the city.

For example your heavy tanks moving 24" on the roads can seriously change the game mechanics.

 

[Stella Cadente]

I'd love and make it my duty to make every game Cityfight, but a few minor changes to the rules, like the roads as you just said.

other than that its as fun as frell

 

[The Son of Horus]

Intact roads are fairly uncommon in my experience, so it's not that big an issue. I prefer cities for the close-quarters combat which I've always liked better, not to mention it's easier to make a visually stunning city board than a regular table. People here aren't much into building tables, which is unfortunate-- I'd like to have games on an actual rolling hills board where the ground isn't completely flat, for instance.

 

[the cabbage]

I forked out £100 for the imperial city and regard it as money well spent.

With the use of a couple of small woods it covers a six by four board. I have still to finish painting it though. When do you ever run out of miniatures to paint to have time to paint scenery?

Most of the cityfight boards I've played on haven't been modelled with craters or obstacles so I find if nobody takes them as a stratagem the raods stay clear.

 

[Jeridian]

Cityfight was a passing fad at our store. Perhaps the incessant cut and stab wounds from the Imperial buildings after every game sapped the will to fight. Perhaps the sheer fiddliness of placing models in buildings.


Though if we are to go off the amount of terrain given in the Cityfight Codex as an example of a Cityfight- then we have all been playing Omega Cityfight in normal 40k for years.
It was a little shocking and disheartening to consider that GW seriously believed 1-2 buildings to be a city, as it brought up the question- Do they seriously think normal 40k should be fought on a desert board (i.e. with even less terrain than this)?

I think the Strategems are what make Cityfight different to 40k (considering we use as much terrain in both), all the terrain, LOS, movement, etc of Cityfight is pretty much a clarification of 40k- nothing more.

 

[Deadman_Ian]

i love cityfighting. I build all my sceanry.

 

[The Wraithlord]

We play it roughly half the time as it all depends on what kind of game we are in or if we are playing a campaign. Cityfight is definitely cool and all but we get tired of the constant 3+ and 4+ cover saves and the lack of terrain variety in our group. Sometimes you just have to play on a forest or desert table too

 

[jigplums]

you didn't put a 0% option for those of us who don't play cityfight.

 

[Jeridian]

Lol, reminds me of the more recent GW Polls:

What do you think of the latest models/rules?

1) Awesome.
2) Really awesome.
3) The best ever.
4) I have no eyes.

 

[The Son of Horus]

Gotta love GW polls.

 

[Iguard]

Our club uses city fight about half the time.