Oh, come on!

Greets
Schepp himself

Which in comparison, IG vs IG is more like what is today. Against marines, IG uses masses of firepower and tanks to accomplish the same goals. 160pts gives you 25 guys and three scoring units, which is about what a 10 man Space marine squad costs. I really don't see the problem with that match up. In a protracted in the open firefight the IG will lose out over time, but using cover you can mitigate it enough to make it a rather even fight. That is where the rules help support the fluff. The IG need to use cover and tactics, while the marines can walk across the battlefield protected from basic fire.

40k is based on small armies, and 1500pts - 1850 is pretty much the standard.

And without knowing the missions, how do you know those two armies couldn't win?

Turtle wrote:Honestly I've never understood the fixation of 'troops are good and must be taken even though they are bad'. Did some guy with a hardon for weaksauce army lists send out a memo that I missed?

[Also...]

...Please not the "now now, there's no need for discussion on a forum set up exactly for that" argument. This is News and Rumours on Dakka Dakka. This is where grown men use overly harsh language about silly rumours about silly miniatures, causing sensitive people and people who hate thinking and discussion to take them too seriously.

Asmodai wrote: When the Navy SEALs go on a sensitive mission, there's no requirement that they also have to bring 100 National Guardsmen with them. The CIA didn't bring the entire NYPD with them when they tried to assassinate Castro.

Turtle, Asmodai, ROFLMAO. May I sig?

I would rather sig something like,

I didn't play 40k to play 2-3 guys a side, or send pills and some weapons covertly across the waters to try and kill a single guy. Doesn't sound like much fun for 40k.

I would really suggest Infinity if you want to play specialists.

Of course Savnock.

I think 40K at the core is flexible enough to model skirmishes. It occupies a middle ground between Infinity and Epic. One of the nice things about that scale is that it should be able to do the range from small to large scale.

A standard Force Organization chart ranges from 11 to 500 models at the extreme ends. The rules should work well to represent all of that. They'll never be perfect, but I think it would be a shame for GW to just toss their hands up in the air and say 40K can't represent smaller scale actions than Apocalypse.

Toreador wrote:I would rather sig something like,

I didn't play 40k to play 2-3 guys a side, or send pills and some weapons covertly across the waters to try and kill a single guy. Doesn't sound like much fun for 40k.

I would really suggest Infinity if you want to play specialists.

Oh please, you're telling me there's no precedent set for Tau to use their more advanced weapons and armour to try and take down their opponents rather than wasting two score of their squishy, short, mildly competent communist citizens? Or that there's no reason for Eldar to send out their combat specialists as opposed to candlestick makers in armour? It's easy to be narrow minded about what an army in game might be doing or fighting for if you refuse to be imaginative about a game, all because you want to force other people to play the game you think it should be played.

To think about it though, I had enough discussions about marine squad sizes and codex discipline in the past to know that people who believe armies should look/play a certain way will justify telling other people how to game in any way they like. What did GW do in time after those discussions? Enforce combat squads in DA and BA. Shows how much I know, and how much people care about being able to make their own decisions when it comes to playing their army.

Quote me all you want, Savnock, though I'd prefer it if people stopped trying to tell me how my army fights and plays instead.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
As it is, armies are still playable as-is. Nobody needs to buy more models or change anything.

Under these rumors, it is entirely possible to have an army that is completely incapable of winning regardless of dice rolls or opponent actions.

Prove it. Show me a current-style army that cannot win under these rumors.

You can just point a link to an army list on Dakka if it saves you time.

Dread mob, using only 2 dreads as troops.

Nid list where the only troops are rippers.

I think you're engaging in pure theoryhammer here.

Who *actually* plays these lists? Hands up, please!

But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

Wehrkind wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's the point, you know. But if you look at regular armies, the average platoon of rifleman isn't particularly good at any one thing, either.

No, riflemen are quite good at engaging an enemy at a respectable range with a weapon that is highly capable of disabling all of their non-mechanized opponents. Compare that to a guardsmen with a lasgun. Not only is his weapon ineffective against most of the armor he will ever shoot at since 4+ or better has a 50% or better chance to be stopped, even if it goes through the armor, it has only a 50/50 chance at best of wounding anything tougher than a grot, much less the multitudes of orks, necrons, marines, etc. that have a T4 or better. That's just about as useful as giving all riflemen .22 long plinking rifles today.

Wait? Riflemen always hit and wound a vital spot for an automatic kill?

You should tell the DoD/MoD. We're wasting tons of money on field medics, armored ambulances, medevac, and so forth. Same with this recent fetish for helmets and body armor! My tax dollars at waste, indeed!

The US has the most expensive military in the world. We don't give every 2 guys a .50, BAR, Mortar, TOW. Hell, we only recently got around to the idea of mechanizing our infantry in Rhinos (Strykers), because we couldn't afford M2 Bradleys, and HMMVs weren't tough enough.
...
That is because most militaries fight with and against ordinary men, and against ordinary men, a rifle is more than adequate. So the real problem with 40k is that there are too many SM. With more Orks and a new Guard, we'll see more light stuff, making Lasguns useful again.

Uhm... yes? That was my point, that armies have less than the best on everyone because the best is too expensive for the added benefit. However, a squad automatic weapon does not convey the same advantage over an M16 that a heavy bolter does over a bolter, much less over a lasgun.

That's arguable and already addressed.

If the US started habitually fighting armies with armor that stopped M16 fire over 75% of the time, you would see a new weapon being issued right quick.

But we don't. Besides, if our tanks had big blast weapons that automatically killed those guys over 83% of the time, and our specialists had Lascannons / MLs & Plasma / Melta, I'd say we'd be OK.

And if the Codex revamp goes properly, we'll see more Orks, meaning less SM.

The "standard" game of 40k was 1500 pts back when 3rd Edition came out and is now 1850 pts in the US. With the push towards mechnization, I'd expect 2000 pts to be the new standard. So if your (low) infantry ratio holds, we're talking 60 SM. Tho in a Scoring Troops / Objectives environment with Combat Squads and reduced points for Transprots, 2000 pts of SM would likely have around 80 SM.

But really, you should be using Guard as the example. That would be 100 models at 2000 pts, and Orks would be 100-150 models.

Which is also my point, that 40k is a skirmish game with larger armies and vehicles shoehorned in over the years. (Creepy how you do that "restate your point as my own but opposing" thing.)

40k was a skirmish game back in RT, I'll agree. But it had increased to a Platoon game in 2E. But since 3E, it's more of a Company-sized game. So using 1000 pts was an artificially low size purely for rhetoric. If you're going to pick a size for your examples, you cannot pick less than 1500 pts and be credible.

It should be obvious that 40k was not meant to be played at huge levels,

If you tried to play 2000 pts worth of stuff using RT rules, it's not possible. But under current rules, it's doable. And with 5th Edition streamlining, I'd expect it to be even easier.

otherwise we wouldn't have to spend time wondering why a scale tank can only lob a shell as far as highschool kids can kick field goals.

Oh, good lord, are you still thinking that 40k is a model scale game? -sigh- Once again, 40k model scale (30mm) isn't ground scale (less than 5mm). Otherwise, the game is even stupider with tanks that can barely outrange a man armed with bow & arrow.

With special rules 40k can do quite well for small games. 40k in 40 minutes was great, but needed a lot of house rules. I would really like to see a very Kill Team/ 40k in 40 rules set ala Apocalypse. Something with more squad level detail like suppression,overwatch,and modifiers.

Almost any game tells you what kind of army you can run, and what units you can take. It's not just us saying it. It's pretty much gaming as a whole. What they try to do is make it so that what is on the tabletop is representative of the fluff or army. It would be interesting to see a game where you could by what you wanted, and only the cost associated limited what you could take, but I have yet to see that work. My army of Space Marine captains will take you on!!

You can play how you want, and this won't change it. The problem may be in how you win the games may change considerably.

They did pull back the candlestick makers. Now Dire Avengers are to the fore.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

And more of the BS of 'I have the only right way to play' that's ruining the game.

And the Dread Mob is in the fluff, and the end of days list (Which was featured in White Dwarf...Had only Rippers for troops) is in the fluff.

But regardless, no list should be completely unable to win, regardless of anything else.

And again, without the full rules, how do you know they cannot win? The only rumour we have heard so far is that missions are changing, and troops are the only scoring units. How it all fits together we don't know. We don't have any context at the moment.

Just the way the rumors are looking, as I said. I did post earlier that it's possible that scoring status isn't the win or lose thing it can be now.

But it's typical GW to screw things up like that.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The way the FOC is constructed (2-6 for Troops, 0-3 for non-Troops), I think it would be *irrational* to assume that the designers intended for players to fill their Heavies & Elites but leave their Troops mostly empty.

And here I was thinking the FOC was constructed that way because the designers intended for players to take 2-6 choices from the Troops section and 0-3 from each of the non-Troops sections. But I guess it's *irrational* to assume that the designers intended for players to do what their rules say to do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW wanted to go about things in an even more directly ham-fisted way, they could easily change the FOC to actually force players to field more Troops:
1 HQ
0-1 Elite
5-8 Troops
0-2 Fast
0-2 Heavy
Would that have been better, or would there be even more crying?

Or they could just as easily change the FOC to:

1-2 HQ
0-3 Elite
2+ Troops
0-3 Fast Attack
0-3 Heavy Support
The combined total of HQ + Elite + Fast Attack + Heavy Support choices may not exceed the number of Troops choices.

That would have been better.

But I'll admit this is a very tough problem. If only there were some other way to make Troops more attractive relative to other choices... hmmm... If only it were possible to assign each model a value proportional to its effectiveness - a total measure of the model's power in-game, a Power In-game Total if you will (or PoInT value for short). If the designers assigned non-Troops choices higher PoInT values than Troops then a player would be able to take more Troops choices than non-Troops choices for a given PoInT allotment. It's too bad there's no chance of such a system ever being implemented... The only other viable solution I can think of is to give Troops rending. All of them. But I guess the rumored solution is pretty good too.

Hey, I have a fun idea for a game! It's called "Tactical Squad". Each player gets a 2-6 full-sized SM Tactical Squads. They shoot at each other with bolters and don't kill anything. THE END.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:If only there were some other way to make Troops more attractive relative to other choices... hmmm... If only it were possible to assign each model a value proportional to its effectiveness - a total measure of the model's power in-game, a Power In-game Total if you will (or PoInT value for short). If the designers assigned non-Troops choices higher PoInT values than Troops then a player would be able to take more Troops choices than non-Troops choices for a given PoInT allotment. It's too bad there's no chance of such a system ever being implemented... I guess the only other viable solution I can think of is to give all rapid fire weapons rending. But the rumored solution is pretty good too.

If it weren't so long, I'd sig it. Come to think of it, I still might (butchered of course).

It is hopelessly naive to assume that any form of 40k could survive a simplistic points assignment process.

The problem with points is that it isn't fixed or linear. For any true force multiplier, effectiveness increases exponentially as quantities increase.

For example, in isolation, as the only armored vehicle in an IG army, a single Leman Russ Demolisher might only be worth only 80 pts. After all, the enemy can concentrate their entire anti-tank firepower on that single model. But the second might be worth double (160), and the third double again (320). And within a heavy-armor company, perhaps even higher.

And then, once the army reaches a certain saturation at a certain total points level, the values level off due to dimishing returns. Perhaps, after a half-dozen Russes, the values actually decrease again.

So assigning points properly becomes a real problem if one intends to use fixed values without a bound on quantities available. Playtesting and balancing is a nightmare, because the combinations are completely unbounded and you have to test all kinds of extreme corner cases.

This is why the FOC is structured the way that it is - the designers can know that there are a maximum number of items that can be concentrated of a given type. Similarly with troops, there's a minimum and a maximum.

But hey, if think you can do points better in a wide-open environment without making the balance issues even worse, more power to you.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

And more of the BS of 'I have the only right way to play' that's ruining the game.

And the Dread Mob is in the fluff, and the end of days list (Which was featured in White Dwarf...Had only Rippers for troops) is in the fluff.

But regardless, no list should be completely unable to win, regardless of anything else.

Speaking of BS...

Oh yeah, what current / recent Codex has Dreads as Troops without any other Troops? And what, exactly, is the rule? There's a lot of Fluff that isn't Codex rules.

I think we can be certain that Rippers won't count towards mandatory Troops in the next (5th Ed) Tyranid Codex.

Definitely, WD lists don't count for Squat, unless you're thinking that we should be playing Movie Marines.

Try to do better, please.

Every time a new codex or edition rolls around, or even worse, the rumours of them roll around, the loudest reaction invariable splits into two equally obnoxious camps:

1) "Every model I've bought is now invalidated and GW sucks and I hate them so much"

2) "This is the change that will eliminate powergaming and restore balance to the universe. It also cures cancer."

Of course I'm putting very silly words in people's mouths, but let's take a rational look at changes. First, GW is not exactly shy about why it releases rules in the first place. From that, it's safe to assume that every rule change is fueled by at least two concerns: making better rules and selling more models. From that, any person that does not want to buy more models or armies is going to lament many major changes because it effects, if not the usability of the army, it's effectiveness. Many posters tend to minimize, mock, or otherwise diminish the validity of that sentiment.

On the other hand, change is vital and good for the game, the hobby, and the industry in general. If editions and codices never changed, we'd still be playing Rhino Rush, or god forbid, 2nd Edition Herohammer. While it's awful that the perfectly honed army of yesterday is the clunky, unweildy mess of today; stuff happens.

My point is not that this discussion is bad or shouldn't occur. My point is rather that entrenching your position as being impregnable and holy quickly makes you look less like a devoted hobbyist and more like a zealot.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But if this really is the total impact, meh, screw 'em, I say! The cheesemongers finally get what they deserve.

And more of the BS of 'I have the only right way to play' that's ruining the game.

And the Dread Mob is in the fluff, and the end of days list (Which was featured in White Dwarf...Had only Rippers for troops) is in the fluff.

But regardless, no list should be completely unable to win, regardless of anything else.

Speaking of BS...

Oh yeah, what current / recent Codex has Dreads as Troops without any other Troops? And what, exactly, is the rule? There's a lot of Fluff that isn't Codex rules.

New Ork Codex allows Dreads as troops.

I think we can be certain that Rippers won't count towards mandatory Troops in the next (5th Ed) Tyranid Codex.

Irrelevant. They are currently troops and can count towards mandatory troops, thus it will be possible to create an army that has no way of taking objectives (And possibly no way of winning a game depending on how the missions play out)

Definitely, WD lists don't count for Squat, unless you're thinking that we should be playing Movie Marines.

Try to do better, please.

I provided two perfectly good examples of armies that can't take any objectives under the rumors. From official codexes.

Turtle wrote:Obviously you missed me trying to make light of the situation with my language, the internet is a harsh mistress so I'm sorry you missed that.

Ah, fair enough, my fault. It is easy to lose meaning when reading and the internet has so much crazy as it is it can be too easy to take whimsical comments seriously. My bad.

However, I'd like to disagree with you there as that speculation on armies and list composition is exactly what pertains to us as consumers in this game. We know the game will change, we know the codices probably won't, or at least not soon, so how is it not prudent to talk about how this will affect our unit selection or game experience? Whether or not you believe it's worthwhile isn't exactly anything people need to worry about, it's perfectly valid on-topic discussion.

I guess I didn’t explain myself very well, then. I have no problem with speculation on successful army composition, such as the discussion of rumours about new codices, or conversation after the release but before any playtesting was done. That’s really useful stuff, at least I've certainly found it useful as a player and consumer of new models. But what we’re talking about here isn’t a rumour that daemons will be generic, or that trucks will be more survivable. What we’re talking about here is a single rumour, a hell of a lot of assumptions and an extreme conclusion.

To make any comment on the new optimum army lists, you need to assume the exact wording of the new rule (and exactly what does and doesn’t count as troops), the new mission structure, new tournament composition criteria, the new meta-game, and the make-up of any upcoming codex revisions. It’s way past the point of being useful, and into the realms of making stuff up.

Honestly I've never understood the fixation of 'troops are good and must be taken even though they are bad'. Did some guy with a hardon for weaksauce army lists send out a memo that I missed? Simply put, when people want to spend their time and dollars on a perfectly legal army list, it seems trite to expect them to hamper their lists to personal expectations. What exactly would be the problem with no troops choices at all? Would it not still be possible to have a full, fun game? Playing devil's advocate here, but you need to understand that asserting that all armies should have a surfeit of troop choices is just as arbitrary an assertion, if not moreso, than saying that it doesn't matter.

Part of the fun of 40k is in playing a game that in some way represents a possible battle from the fictional universe. Armies with 2 minimum squads of scouts backed by masses of armour and terminators can only be explained by some extremely stretched background. Armies of 6 rippers backed by 6 carnifex and 2 tyrants simply can’t be explained in a sensible way.

This is a problem that FOC and composition scoring have tried and failed to fix. The problem is that stretching back to 2nd ed, units in 40k have been defined almost entirely by there ability to kill and resist being killed, and anything else has been an unusual and minor exception. This is because unique abilities, such as being able to hold ground haven’t been considered. As a result, the most powerful army lists have been based around maximizing your killing potential while allowing yourself only one possible vulnerability (such maxxing out on armour, or on MEQ or GEQ). The core of 40K’s min/max problem lies in a lack of diverse abilities between the different unit types.

Looking a game like FoW, troops have a unique place in being able to absorb immense punishment while sitting on an objective, and are the most practical unit for assaulting enemy dug in on an objective. But they don’t have the mobility and firepower of tanks, or the ranged striking power and suppression of artillery. Each option has a distinct role, and as a result the most successful lists contain all possible options.

But in 40K a tank needs to sit there and try to kill as much stuff as possible before exploding, and if its somehow still alive at the end of the game then it can march up to an objective. Skimmers are the same, albeit with slightly less firepower for the points cost, but a much greater chance of surviving to the end, and more mobility to reach an objective. Neither is fundamentally different to a las/plas squad.

The whole 40k metagame revolves around your ability to kill the targets you’re likely to face. There is little or no consideration given to combined arms forces being used to support each other in an assault. Making troops the only objective takers gives them a unique ability, to make up for their lower damage potential. But it’s likely their lesser potency won’t make up for what is a particularly powerful ability.

Remember though, I’m only arguing in favour of the general concept, the rumoured execution strikes me as arbitrary (why can’t elite infantry or jump infantry hold objectives… silly really). It could also be better solved with less extreme rules; giving infantry the ability to deploy first, up the field on objectives, coupled with more sensible rules for shooting and assaulting troops in cover, would go a long way to making general troops a better choice, without such an extreme and potentially unbalancing rule as the rumoured change.

And I should clarify that I have no problem boosting troops, but this is the most hamfisted, silly way to do things I can imagine. Hurrah broad sweeping rules changes. Why is this a bad thing? Because it negatively affects a lot of armies that are otherwise perfectly viable, and screws with people's abilities to make the armies they'd like to with their money and time. I object simply to having the rules changed to negatively impact certain armies/units as opposed to the game allowing viability for a wide range of armies.

It’s a changing game and that means that if you try and stay on the cutting edge of tournament standard armies, be prepared to keep spending money. If you’re just happy to sit back a level or two and build themed armies that don’t have to be all conquering, then you have to accept a moderate chance that your army will fluctuate in power with each revision, and a slight chance your army may be made illegal without a healthy amount of ‘counts as’. The only really safe players are people who want to collect a little or a lot of everything.

If you aren't comfortable with the idea of changing your army over time, this might not be the best game for you.

skyth wrote:New Ork Codex allows Dreads as troops.

Why can't Dreads taken as troops hold objectives?

sebster wrote:

skyth wrote:New Ork Codex allows Dreads as troops.

Why can't Dreads taken as troops hold objectives?

Rumor says non-vehicles. Dreads are Vehicles.

skyth wrote:Rumor says non-vehicles. Dreads are Vehicles.

Rumour has also said any unit taken as a troop. It's really, really speculative right now.

skyth wrote:I provided two perfectly good examples of armies that can't take any objectives under the rumors. From official codexes.

OK, then I sincerely hope that those players enjoy their Codices for the remainder of 4th Edition.

Hope everybody gets their wishes when the codex comes out, better still if those hopes are crushed. Leave the hobby now and save the heartache.

I for one cant wait for the new codex. The game just keeps getting better and better (well apart from losing Rhino rush) and people just get madder and madder

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Wait? Riflemen always hit and wound a vital spot for an automatic kill?

You should tell the DoD/MoD. We're wasting tons of money on field medics, armored ambulances, medevac, and so forth. Same with this recent fetish for helmets and body armor! My tax dollars at waste, indeed!

*sigh* Do you really think you need to kill someone to take them out as a casualty? M16's are a lot better at wounding than actually killing, but the wounds they cause put people down and out of the fight. So no, all those lovely things are still needed. But in general, if you hit someone with a bullet from an M16, you have a better than 25% chance to drop them if they are wearing common body armor. IG shooting at IG wearing carapace armor has a 50% chance to wound, and 50% chance to have it stopped by armor. That would never fly in the real world. Worse still, shooting marines, orks, anything T4, the target has a 66% chance of not caring that you shot them.

So, no, riflemen don't always hit and remove enemies as a threat. They do however have a much better chance than 25% to remove them if they do hit, and if they don't, they won't be a relevant part of any force.

If the US started habitually fighting armies with armor that stopped M16 fire over 75% of the time, you would see a new weapon being issued right quick.

But we don't. Besides, if our tanks had big blast weapons that automatically killed those guys over 83% of the time, and our specialists had Lascannons / MLs & Plasma / Melta, I'd say we'd be OK.

And if the Codex revamp goes properly, we'll see more Orks, meaning less SM.

I still don't think we have a good explanation of what this Troops thing is actually solving for. Is people fielding too many E, HS and FA choices really a fundamental problem in the game? It's not as if all E, HS and FA choices were made equal. Probably more than half the E choices in the game are overpriced. If the problem is players loading up on *particular* E, HS and FA choices at the expense of T choices in their codex, then that's a problem that should be solved in CODICES, not by main rules changes.

If the rule ends up being about *Infantry,* fine, I understand. They're trying to eliminate the single buggy speeding off, ducking behind some trees and holding a board quarter. I get that. Troops only...that's just compounding mistakes.

If they want to add balance, my first suggestion would be to add a scalable, or perhaps three-tiered org chart. They could institute one for up to 999 pts, another for 1000-1999 points, and a third from 2000-2999 pts. That system takes you right up to Apoc, and eliminates the problem with say, players fielding 3 HS choices in a 750 point game. That kind of thing is an actual issue.

Well said, Gorgon.

"If they want to add balance, my first suggestion would be to add a scalable, or perhaps three-tiered org chart. They could institute one for up to 999 pts, another for 1000-1999 points, and a third from 2000-2999 pts. That system takes you right up to Apoc, and eliminates the problem with say, players fielding 3 HS choices in a 750 point game. That kind of thing is an actual issue."

Warhammer Fantasy uses such a system with admirable results.

Asmodai wrote:"If they want to add balance, my first suggestion would be to add a scalable, or perhaps three-tiered org chart. They could institute one for up to 999 pts, another for 1000-1999 points, and a third from 2000-2999 pts. That system takes you right up to Apoc, and eliminates the problem with say, players fielding 3 HS choices in a 750 point game. That kind of thing is an actual issue."

Warhammer Fantasy uses such a system with admirable results.

Heavy Gear Blitz uses a similar system (to WHFB) but based around every squad-type int he army lsit getting an entry. Seems to work pretty well in practice, and allows for things like most formations get 'broader' and more 'inclusive' as they grow: for example, an Armor Regiment might get access to specialized Gear squads at high point values, while Light and Heavy tank squads go from unlimited to required.

I rather like how Infinity uses the SWC slot as a way to
balance special forces with infantry.

Polonius wrote:...My point is not that this discussion is bad or shouldn't occur. My point is rather that entrenching your position as being impregnable and holy quickly makes you look less like a devoted hobbyist and more like a zealot.

Great post, but more importantly, will these Zealots counts as scoring units in the new edition?

sebster wrote:

skyth wrote:Rumor says non-vehicles. Dreads are Vehicles.

Rumour has also said any unit taken as a troop. It's really, really speculative right now.

Got a link to that effect, please? The most recent clarification of the rumour from Brimstone, as posted here, is clear in it's definition of 'non-swarm non-vehicle troops'

Wehrkind wrote:IG shooting at IG wearing carapace armor has a 50% chance to wound, and 50% chance to have it stopped by armor. That would never fly in the real world.

IG don't wear carapace, they wear flak.

Is that an argument, or are you ceding my point that if the US army's main rifle went below 25% effectiveness on a hit, that they would replace it quickly?

Sort of. If we fought against 8-foot tall genetically-engineered, acid-spitting superhumans wearing Power Armour equivalent to a M2 Bradley, to the exclusion of fighting anything else, then yes, I think we might change the basic weapon.

But if we mostly fought unarmored rebels, renegades in flak, thin carapace bugs, and walking fungus, then we might be OK with a slightly upgraded rifle, and just have a couple guys carrying Special or Heavy weapons for those rare occasions in which a superhuman appears that needs killing. Even better, we'd adapt our Tanks to kill those stupid superhumans with Ordnance at range, rather than risking them getting close up.

The problem with the Guard isn't the flashlights, it's that there aren't enough GEQs being played compared to the number of MEQs. That is, the play environment of mostly MEQs doesn't match the Fluff of nearly exclusively GEQ vs GEQ combat.

Besides, we do have specialists with rocket launchers. In fact, in areas where light armor is common, our troops are issued single shot rocket launchers, just so they can ALL deal with tanks, even if Pvt. Dave takes one in the chest. Imagine that! Troops all getting issued weapons to deal with the threat at hand!

Wow, the US military is more flexibile than the absolute rigidity of the galaxy-spanning Imperial Administratum!

2000pts is "huge?" 160 figures is an "army"?

In 40k terms, yes. I prefer to look at 40k battles as the deciding action tip of the lance. It's the 1% to 5% of the battle that is most interesting. It's where the overall thrust will be decided.

Ok, look, I know you are either hyper-optimistic, or have a little GW shrine in your bathroom, or both, or whatever.

Optomistic isn't a word that I would have used.

Butt, yes, I have a little shrine to GW in my bathroom, to which I make a daily "offering" (of sorts). This shine is made of white porcelain, upon which I sit and meditate whilst I drop off my offering in its holy waters.

But seriously, do you honestly believe that the game designers sat down and figured out some logarithmic scale for ground distance, while keeping the figures, terrain and buildings they manufacture all the same size?

Of course not. GW designers aren't quite that clever. But they understand scale and admit that the model scale isn't ground scale. Even going back to RT and WFB6, they had notes on scale, distance, measurement, and time. It's only more recently that GW has stopped making note of this because they have learned that the average GW gamer simply doesn't have mental capacity to comprehend that models are larger than the ground scale would suggest, and trying to explain these things take the game into the muddy waters of realism which doesn't belong in a fantasy universe.

So, how many people have played with only troops and with the new missions to find out really how balanced it is?

I know it's a dead horse, but geesh, getting all bent out of shape about something we know little about is a little premature.

If you had been listening/talking/watching about the M16 and Iraq and you will find that most of the people firing the weapon are irritated that it takes sometimes 3 rounds to put someone down, and even then it may take more. Any body armour and it gets worse. It was the biggest reason the army started looking at 6.5 and 6.8mm rounds. The army decided it was too much cost to upgrade all the weapons AND they had too much surplus. So for now, it kills people so it is "just good enough". Even though a lot of the Spec Ops guys are using all the new rounds because they are so much better.

Sound familiar?

And why oh why do those guardsmen have carapace armour? Not a great example... flak only stops 1/3.

And not everyone carries an AT-4 even when a lot of armour is around. A person or persons are assigned it, but at 14 pounds how many are you going to lug around with everything else in the squad? You are already carrying too much, it's just not happening.

gorgon wrote:If they want to add balance, my first suggestion would be to add a scalable, or perhaps three-tiered org chart. They could institute one for up to 999 pts, another for 1000-1999 points, and a third from 2000-2999 pts. That system takes you right up to Apoc, and eliminates the problem with say, players fielding 3 HS choices in a 750 point game. That kind of thing is an actual issue.

At the release of 4th edition, I expected GW to follow WFB practice and have a scalable FOC. But GW instead had rules for 40k in 40 minutes & Combat patrol, along with BfM to start on "small" games.

More recently, GW released Apocalypse for "large" games. This appears to have been a resounding success.

Based on the release of Apocalypse, I think GW is in the process of segmenting their games as follows:
- up to 1000 pts = Battle for Macragge
- 1000 up to 2500 pts = Warhammer 40k
- over 2500 pts = Apocalypse!

This allows GW to sell a more-developed "pure" Combat Patrol skirmish game for small stuff, with rules and options for 40k in 40 minutes / Necromunda / Space Hulk / Kill Team. If they can get people to buy things like Mighty Empires and Apocalypse, what makes you think they won't make a try for a stand-alone edition of Combat Patrol in 2008 or 2009?

The first test of this will be when 5th Edition comes out and the small-scale stuff is completely gone from the "big" rulebook.

Toreador wrote:
And not everyone carries an AT-4 even when a lot of armour is around. A person or persons are assigned it, but at 14 pounds how many are you going to lug around with everything else in the squad? You are already carrying too much, it's just not happening.

The Markerlight is an alternative. Lots of examples of modern troops marking targets for aerial bombardment. As long as you control the airspace, it's an alternative to lugging around heavy weapons.

Infantry also called in airstrikes in WWII and were able to pinpoint better than aerial bombardment on its own. It'll be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out in the Planetstrike supplement.

JohnHwangDD wrote:This allows GW to sell a more-developed "pure" Combat Patrol skirmish game for small stuff, with rules and options for 40k in 40 minutes / Necromunda / Space Hulk / Kill Team. If they can get people to buy things like Mighty Empires and Apocalypse, what makes you think they won't make a try for a stand-alone edition of Combat Patrol in 2008 or 2009?

I hope they do. I'd buy it in a second. I'd also buy a squad of Chaos Marines, Fire Warriors, Mandrakes and other units I've passed on because I didn't have time to paint a full army of them.

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:This allows GW to sell a more-developed "pure" Combat Patrol skirmish game for small stuff, with rules and options for 40k in 40 minutes / Necromunda / Space Hulk / Kill Team. If they can get people to buy things like Mighty Empires and Apocalypse, what makes you think they won't make a try for a stand-alone edition of Combat Patrol in 2008 or 2009?

I hope they do.

I'd buy it in a second. I'd also buy a squad of Chaos Marines, Fire Warriors, Mandrakes and other units I've passed on because I didn't have time to paint a full army of them.

Me too!

It would be stupid of GW not to do it because it "seeds" players with armies that can eventually grow into regular, full 40k armies. It's evil and insidious.

Yep, in agreement. It would be a nice intro into the bigger games. Smaller, very story oriented missions and such, with a lot more detailed rules. If they wanted to make it Necromundaesque I would be quite happy.

But they don't like us happy :(

JohnHwangDD wrote:More recently, GW released Apocalypse for "large" games. This appears to have been a resounding success.

I think we need more time to see if that's the case. I really don't see Apoc as having even as much staying power as CoD. Apoc has logistical issues (time length, portability, organizing people and scenarios) that create a bit of a ceiling for it.
Doesn't mean it isn't a successful extension of 40K into higher points levels, just that I think it'll end up occupying a pretty small niche.

The first test of this will be when 5th Edition comes out and the small-scale stuff is completely gone from the "big" rulebook.

Rumors are that the small scale will be gone from the rulebook, and a Combat Patrol/Kill Team/whatever supplement is in the works for 2009 or so. However, note that's still a different-sized game than 1000 pts, and players likely won't be required to use that supplement's rules for smaller games just as they aren't required to use Apoc for larger games. Separate, optional supplements don't eliminate the need for a scalable org chart.

gorgon wrote:Separate, optional supplements don't eliminate the need for a scalable org chart.

That's hard to say. I think you have it backwards. In GW's mind, a static non-scalable FOC for Warhammer 40k helps reinforce the need for players to purchase separate, optional supplements.
Apocalypse dispenses with the FOC entirely, while Combat Patrol will do something different yet again. So, no, GW won't do it, because there won't be a need for a scalable FOC.

I’m another person who was surprised not to see a scaling Force Org chart like they’ve had in Warhammer since 6th edition came out in what, 2000, 2001? I play and enjoy both games, have to say it works pretty darn well in WH, and would really help 40k.

There's no reason that they can't have completely unrelated organization/composition systems for Apoc and Combat Patrol.

It's not that GW can't make a scalable FOC, it's that they don't want to make a scalable FOC. This keeps the main 40k rulebook simpler, along with their job of balancing things against a single FOC.

If you look at what GW has been doing, they've been fumbling with small games for a while (several years), and small games are clearly something they want to support.

But it is obvious to me that GW is moving towards clearer separation between different gaming concepts:

Warhammer 40k is going to be their standard game, with support for tournament gaming. Hence, the fixed FOC and Codices balanced against that structure. This is also why the non-standard FOCs and Attacker/Defender missions are in the big book, not the small book.

Apocalypse is for 2500+ points, for large *fun* (non-competitive) narrative games with big flashy, wacky stuff happening.

Combat Patrol will be for sub-1000 pts scenario gaming. I suspect we'll see uneven points scenarios, to facilitate beginning players who grow their armies at different rates.

Can Warhammer 40k be played small or large? Can Apocalypse play down? Can Combat Patrol be played large? Yes, but the balance is off for all of these when they get out of their balance zones.

Assuming GW operates against a plan with any logic, then this is what makes sense.
____

Also, WRT the variable FOC working for WFB, it is almost entirely 2000+ pt games, with the occasional 3000+ pt game. <2000 pt games tend to be growth leagues, with modifiers.

And as you move up and down, you have big shifts in power. For example, TK *hate* to play <2000 pts because they lose their Lords.

Tribune wrote:Rumour has also said any unit taken as a troop. It's really, really speculative right now.

Got a link to that effect, please? The most recent clarification of the rumour from Brimstone, as posted here, is clear in it's definition of 'non-swarm non-vehicle troops'

Wehrkind wrote:*sigh* Do you really think you need to kill someone to take them out as a casualty? M16's are a lot better at wounding than actually killing, but the wounds they cause put people down and out of the fight. So no, all those lovely things are still needed. But in general, if you hit someone with a bullet from an M16, you have a better than 25% chance to drop them if they are wearing common body armor. IG shooting at IG wearing carapace armor has a 50% chance to wound, and 50% chance to have it stopped by armor. That would never fly in the real world. Worse still, shooting marines, orks, anything T4, the target has a 66% chance of not caring that you shot them.

So, no, riflemen don't always hit and remove enemies as a threat. They do however have a much better chance than 25% to remove them if they do hit, and if they don't, they won't be a relevant part of any force.

Except the lasgun is hitting the target 50% of the time. Which is absurdly accurate - how many rounds are put downfield in modern combat for every hit?

So we can sit here and talk about an exceptionally accurate rifle, fired by troops that rarely suffer suppression and maintain full rates of fire from all healthy troops, that only inflicts significant wounds with a half of all hits, of which 1/3 of which are stopped by armour (taking flak as the most common form of armour).

Or we can accept the system as being pretty simple and largely abstract, where the only figures that really matter are the number of men needed to kill a certain number of enemy models. And even that final result can't be quantified against any real life example, as we don't really know how long a turn of 40k is in 'real time', and over what range the firing is considered to take place.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Optomistic isn't a word that I would have used.

"Optomistic" isn't a word PERIOD.

sebster wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:*sigh* Do you really think you need to kill someone to take them out as a casualty? M16's are a lot better at wounding than actually killing, but the wounds they cause put people down and out of the fight. So no, all those lovely things are still needed. But in general, if you hit someone with a bullet from an M16, you have a better than 25% chance to drop them if they are wearing common body armor. IG shooting at IG wearing carapace armor has a 50% chance to wound, and 50% chance to have it stopped by armor. That would never fly in the real world. Worse still, shooting marines, orks, anything T4, the target has a 66% chance of not caring that you shot them.

So, no, riflemen don't always hit and remove enemies as a threat. They do however have a much better chance than 25% to remove them if they do hit, and if they don't, they won't be a relevant part of any force.

Except the lasgun is hitting the target 50% of the time. Which is absurdly accurate - how many rounds are put downfield in modern combat for every hit?

So we can sit here and talk about an exceptionally accurate rifle, fired by troops that rarely suffer suppression and maintain full rates of fire from all healthy troops, that only inflicts significant wounds with a half of all hits, of which 1/3 of which are stopped by armour (taking flak as the most common form of armour).

Or we can accept the system as being pretty simple and largely abstract, where the only figures that really matter are the number of men needed to kill a certain number of enemy models. And even that final result can't be quantified against any real life example, as we don't really know how long a turn of 40k is in 'real time', and over what range the firing is considered to take place.

Exactly right, the system is an abstraction. An average IG soldier has a 50% chance of hitting something with X number of shots fired in Y minutes. This has no doubt been carefully calculated by GW based on the rate of casualties they want to occur every round of firing.

Carefully calculated?

This gives me happy visions of games-design interns being lined up and shot at while Phil Kelly looks on with a stopwatch. "Got two in 30 seconds there. Not bad, Gav!"

The abstraction of the weapon hitting or missing when fired by Pvt. Grunty is irrelevant to what happens when it hits. If they want to say IG are a rough analogue of WW2 Russian troops, with poor training and morale etc., that's fine. Their ability to hit is some function of weapon skill, rate of fire, etc. that we don't have insight to.
We do know, however, what happens when they hit. In the case of shooting a guardsman in carapace (which they can wear after all) they have a terrible chance of doing anything. One in four hits on average is going to do anything. Even compared to Toreador's 3 shots for one man, that is pretty bad.

I agree with JHDD that guardsmen are not necessarily supposed to be fighting Marines every day, so rocking with Str5 Ap3 weapons on everone isn't needed. But what are they fighting most? Other IG types with or without any armor? So a 50%-75% of doing nothing per hit. Throw in Eldar and it pushes it towards the 75% bracket (Eldar generally have T3 and Sv3 or 4+, if I recall). Orks are T4 now, and what, 5+? So ~75% chance to do nothing. I don't know Tyranids well, but they are generally T3 Sv4+ are they not? So another 75%. Necrons and Marines ~10% to kill on a hit. Tau, 75% chance to do nothing.
So, while in theory IG are supposed to be fighting GEQ or worse 90% of the time, in reality they seem to fight much tougher things. Even assuming they only fight GEQ, they are still toting a pretty pathetic weapon for that purpose. If you want to look at how many people it takes to kill one guy, it takes between 3 and 4 guardsmen to reliably put down one guardsmen depending on whether he is wearing a t-shirt or a wet t-shirt, assuming all hit.

Now, I agree with you guys that it is a gap between fluff and rules. But at the same time, the system should reflect that it is cheaper to have 9 guys with fairly useless guns and one man with a good gun. It it quite historically accurate to have troops fighting with outdated weapons because they fight outdated armies. The Brits did this for a long time before WW1 and there is an argument to be made that the US is finding itself in a similar position now.
However, I think that suggests more that IG should have the option of upgrading the weapons for every model in the unit, not that they should all have a powerful laser pointer. All squads could have the option of a "bolter-lite" maybe St4 Ap- for +1 point, or a heavy weapon for every 2 men, but at a much higher cost than the HW now. Basically let every squad turn into a heavy weapons platoon. The question would be of balancing the cost of a lascannon or whatever against the cost of X IG. So while you could in theory just field a mess of heavy weapons, you would find yourself short on bodies, bodies that die pretty easily. Or you could go to the other extreme and have just a few heavies and a lot more flashlights. Or you could go in the middle for a more "modern" type force where you had more heavy weapons and useful guns, but less troops, etc.

In other words you would have lots of flexibility and options on how you want your army to work instead of "Las/Plas and 8 ablative wounds * X units"

Butt, yes, I have a little shrine to GW in my bathroom, to which I make a daily "offering" (of sorts). This shine is made of white porcelain, upon which I sit and meditate whilst I drop off my offering in its holy waters.

Very nicely put!

"If they want to say IG are a rough analogue of WW2 Russian troops, with poor training and morale etc., that's fine."

They're not. Maybe Valhallan Conscripts are.

Most Imperial Guard (Praetorians, Cadians, etc.) are well trained and disciplined troops. They're not super-human and immune to fear, but it's a mistake to think of them as being press-ganged conscripts.

The Marines in Aliens, the soldiers in the Starship Troopers movie, and the USMC in Space Above and Beyond are better analogies.

The Imperial Guard tends to be a bit of an elite. They're not Planetary Defense Forces which have never seen real combat. Most Guard Regiments have experience fighting hundreds of battles on dozens of planets. Their rules should reflect that.

And we don't see a lot of the lesser things that the guard are supposedly put up against.

Most rable and cultist types that are presented are mostly autoguns and heavy stubbas. Against that type of thing the guard are looked upon as elite.

And you have given a lot more armour to their opponents.

Orks T4 Sv 6+
Eldar T3 Sv 5+ (guardians are the eldar guard)
Gaunts T3 6+

Against those types of targets the guard do well enough. They have a lot of heavy support and tanks to support the basic grunt, along with command squads and vets with even more specialist weapons. Overall they can be quite well armed, it's just that the basic grunt has a simple lasgun. It works "well enough" because of need, simplicity, and numbers.

It's one reason I would like to see more emphasis placed on Traitor guard and cultist lists. Having opponents that are even crappier than the guard themselves would help show what forces like the Sisters and Guard are really up against mostly.

I am just saying that no matter what you consider the guard to be in real life, my analysis doesn't consider how many shots they put down range, but only what happens when those shots connect.
I agree about the rabble types, but they don't exist as a proper army in 40k.
I did think that Eldar were more of a majority of 4+ or better... maybe I just don't see many guardians around here (I don't play Eldar much.)
'Nids I can see the guns being pretty good against too.

Still, I think GW just needs to come up with a decent system for allowing different builds of troops for IG, not just sticking with silly weapons that are not good vs. different types. I think allowing upgrades to more powerful basic weapons would be a nice option to make an army that is more focused on killing Xenos, etc. That's all. I really want more options.

Asmodai wrote:"If they want to say IG are a rough analogue of WW2 Russian troops, with poor training and morale etc., that's fine."

They're not. Maybe Valhallan Conscripts are.

Most Imperial Guard (Praetorians, Cadians, etc.) are well trained and disciplined troops. They're not super-human and immune to fear, but it's a mistake to think of them as being press-ganged conscripts.

The Marines in Aliens, the soldiers in the Starship Troopers movie, and the USMC in Space Above and Beyond are better analogies.

The Imperial Guard tends to be a bit of an elite. They're not Planetary Defense Forces which have never seen real combat. Most Guard Regiments have experience fighting hundreds of battles on dozens of planets. Their rules should reflect that.

Generally agreed.

Yes, Guardsmen are still faceless dog soldiers. But they're well-trained, obedient dog soldiers, with good training (WS3 BS3) decent discipline (don't freeze when seeing big bug) and reasonable equipment (Flak).

They just look bad because they face off in games against genetically-engineered superhumans far too often.

The problem is that 40k doesn't have enough crap to reflect untrained raw civilians (Rebel - WS1 BS1 A1 Ld5 Sv-) or even guys with 2 weeks basic training and no experience (Conscript - WS2 BS2 A1 Ld6 Sv-). If 40k had more games of IG & PDF against the Rebels & Conscripts, IG would look a lot better.

Wehrkind wrote:The abstraction of the weapon hitting or missing when fired by Pvt. Grunty is irrelevant to what happens when it hits.

No, it isn't. It's a really common element of game design to inflate the chance to hit a target while deflating the likelihood of causing significant damage. Most wargames and almost every roleplaying game does the same thing, giving people 4 and 5 times as much chance of hitting, but making hits considerably less likely.

Games have adopted this model for a couple of reasons. If firing were based on something closer to reality, with hitting unlikely you'd basically have two sides rolling their dices needing 6s to hit, but then having most hits be lethal (or sufficiently damaging to take the model off the field). We'd be playing a battle of who can roll the most 6s, and it would suck.

Secondly, using middle of the road numbers for hitting, wounding and beating armour allows for more variation. If hitting was based around needing 6s, a better shot will move to 5s, meaning he'll hit twice as often, while a poorer shot has no target number unless you start stuffing around with needing a second roll after managing the first 6. The same thing would exist for the rolls to wound, you'd have little variation, when you start modelling more powerful weapons or higher toughness you have little room for probability manipulation.

The whole hit, wound and beat armour system is one single system, with an end result that works well enough. The only real problem comes when people want to start navel gazing and looking for direct simulation within individual parts of the dice roll, when no such thing is meant to exist.

Wehrkind wrote:It it quite historically accurate to have troops fighting with outdated weapons because they fight outdated armies.

However, I think that suggests more that IG should have the option of upgrading the weapons for every model in the unit, not that they should all have a powerful laser pointer. All squads could have the option of a "bolter-lite" maybe St4 Ap- for +1 point,

or a heavy weapon for every 2 men, but at a much higher cost than the HW now. Basically let every squad turn into a heavy weapons platoon.

In other words you would have lots of flexibility and options on how you want your army to work instead of "Las/Plas and 8 ablative wounds * X units"

I'm generally OK with this line of reasoning.

As you brought up WW1 and equipment, it's worth noting that the Germans observed that they were overgunned with their standard rifles. The extra cost and carrying weight of the rifle was not worth the greater range and accuracy in the hands of the average soldier at the distances typically engaged. They ended up downgrading them in later years.

With Doctrines, for a cost of +4 pts / model, you can upgrade 3 squads of Guardsmen to carry AP5 Flashlights with BS4 Targeters and Sv4+ Carapace. With Heavy Weapon Platoons, you can have Heavy Weapons for every 2 men, at full price. You can take 3 such Platoons instead of taking Russes / Bassies.

FWIW, those 8 wounds aren't very expensive (and likely to get noticeably cheaper). They're helpful in preventing Torrent against the Heavy & Special.

Wehrkind wrote:The abstraction of the weapon hitting or missing when fired by Pvt. Grunty is irrelevant to what happens when it hits. If they want to say IG are a rough analogue of WW2 Russian troops, with poor training and morale etc., that's fine. Their ability to hit is some function of weapon skill, rate of fire, etc. that we don't have insight to.
We do know, however, what happens when they hit. In the case of shooting a guardsman in carapace (which they can wear after all) they have a terrible chance of doing anything. One in four hits on average is going to do anything. Even compared to Toreador's 3 shots for one man, that is pretty bad.

...
...

The wounding and saving is also part of the abstraction.

GW very carefully calculated that they wanted an IG to knock out an SM once in every hundred shots (or whatever) so they assigned very carefully thought out rates of fire, To Hit/Wound/Save in order to achieve that result.

Probably.

Yes, but the Germans were not trying to shoot down a tide of muscle bound green skins. Though it would make for a good movie.
The distinction I am trying to make is between your German example "Wow, we are really overkilling it here. We could save money and have just about the same end result against all our opponants" vs. "Well, we are saving money, but against a good percentage of our enemies our weapons are pretty piss poor." I just think the Codex would be better if you had the options of making the decision of what manner of weapons to give your squads yourself, with out being stuck into "1 heavy/special per 10." I just don't think it would be imbalancing to have all the guardsmen with better weapons at a higher price, or all with heavies, or some mix, depending on how you wanted the army to play.

I would much rather have a Russ than a heavy weapons platoon, thanks Though replacing some las/plas platoons with heavy weapons would be nice. Or maybe getting some sniper teams of two men. Or really any more options than "las/plas gunline" and "plasma/melta drop troops." For supposedly being a hugely varied organization, the IG really has a lot less options of how the forces really work than say Marines.

And don't talk to me about Hellguns. The only thing I want to know is who the hell thought they were worth the same points on an IC as a Bolter. (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun, but they are still pretty weak.)

Didn't GW define "normal" human as 3 stats across the board save for Ld? Or was that "normal human soldier?" Still, until GW releases real Lost and Damned (or confused and irritated at least) so we have more "human level" armies, the lasgun only just doesn't make sense.

It occurs to me that this is getting so off topic as to be laughable. Perhaps moving the posts to Proposed Rules: I Want a Different Bleedin' IG Codex! would be a good thing.

sebster wrote:

Tribune wrote:Got a link to that effect, please? The most recent clarification of the rumour from Brimstone, as posted here, is clear in it's definition of 'non-swarm non-vehicle troops'

Not in the slightest

I've read a few threads and one of the rumours stated 'anything taken in a troops slot'. It could have even been from any of the threads, maybe even this one.

Then sadly I would have to say your information was either incorrect or already outdated by the time you posted. Not to worry.

I've always seen the Guard as huge, monolithic bloc. While the guys may come from a million worlds, they're more similar in equipment, doctrine, and tactics than different.

This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special. They should be perfectly ordinary in as many ways as possible. To me, the point is that Guardsmen are all the same - interchangeable, faceless, soulless dog soldiers who give their lives in service to the military machine of the Imperium.

I can see that for inner planets, or those that are closely regulated by Terra. But there are billions of different planets and cultures, all more or less closely watched over by the High Lords. It makes more sense to me that there be a lot of variation in how each PDF or galactic region's units fight.

I mean, even the most hide bound beaurocracy loses control at the fringes, and planets on the fringe of the Ork sectors are going to have weapons and tactics focused on taking them out, just as those near Tyranid areas are going to be focused more on those, etc.

Plus, not to say you are wrong in how you play, but I think such a huge galaxy spanning organization should allow different players the flexibility they want. I think the codex should allow for the faceless human tide like you want, more elite veterans like the Tanith, dedicated Xeno hunters with special weapons, highly mechanized forces like the Steel Legion, and everything inbetween.

I understand that GW wants to simplify their codexes, but I think that interest and variance in the game is the price they pay past a point.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always seen the Guard as huge, monolithic bloc. While the guys may come from a million worlds, they're more similar in equipment, doctrine, and tactics than different.

This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special. They should be perfectly ordinary in as many ways as possible. To me, the point is that Guardsmen are all the same - interchangeable, faceless, soulless dog soldiers who give their lives in service to the military machine of the Imperium.

That's an interesting view. How do you reconcile that with the fluff which generally paints Guard Regiments as being drastically different?

Some are dogfaces, others are stealth specialists (whether jungle, urban or 'other'), some of nomadic horse-riding desert raiders, and others are elite nobility with a Chimera for every squad, and the finest carapace armor and weaponry that their houses (or the Schola Progenium) can afford.

Guardsmen haven't been at all uniform since RT. I'm not sure what the reason would be for completely changing that now. Players that want faceless soulless interchangeable soldiers can already play Necrons. A lot of players are attracted to the Guard because with human faces and the really posable models you can give every individual a distinct personality.

I guess stormtroopers/ drop troop don't count i guess there should just be vanilla SM then too

JohnHwangDD wrote:This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special.

My guess is that Christmas, freedom and the Baby Jeebus are also on your s#@t list.

(Kidding! If you were like that, you would play Necrons.)

If SMs are as rare as the fluff says, the Guard would need a variety of special units to do lots of things that armies have to do without the aid of the elitest special forces. Pretend the Imperial forces are like the US forces; the SMs are the Marines, while the IG are the regular army containing line infantry, Rangers, airmobile, paratroops, armoured division, artillery and engineers. Which gives plenty of room for variation.

@Savnock LMAO

To take the liberty of speaking for John, I get the feeling he really dislikes options in general. My guess is his perfect codex would be extremely set, sort of like the Necron codex. No wargear, no special rules, just a hand full of units.
Maybe fun, but it seems to me that it would get really old after a while. To me a good list is one that lends itself to a mess of variety without having to bend over backwards.

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always seen the Guard as huge, monolithic bloc. While the guys may come from a million worlds, they're more similar in equipment, doctrine, and tactics than different.

This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special. They should be perfectly ordinary in as many ways as possible. To me, the point is that Guardsmen are all the same - interchangeable, faceless, soulless dog soldiers who give their lives in service to the military machine of the Imperium.

That's an interesting view. How do you reconcile that with the fluff which generally paints Guard Regiments as being drastically different?

I chalk it up to writer's hyperbole, kind of like how INSERT QUESTIONABLE GOVERMENT PR CLAIM HERE.

I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

When every Guard army is special, with Drop Troops and COD being the order of the day, they're no longer the Guard for which the Fluff was originally written.

POST EDITED FOR POLITICAL COMMENTARY

Kilkrazy wrote:If SMs are as rare as the fluff says, the Guard would need a variety of special units to do lots of things that armies have to do without the aid of the elitest special forces. Pretend the Imperial forces are like the US forces; the SMs are the Marines, while the IG are the regular army containing line infantry, Rangers, airmobile, paratroops, armoured division, artillery and engineers. Which gives plenty of room for variation.

I would agree.

But Airbore, Rangers, Armored Cav, Engineers, Spotters, etc. are almost entirely Veterans / Elites that you're talking about, rather than ordinary Platoons.

And even then, every single one of them is still a Rifleman first.

I'd be happy to see these MOSs reflected as Veteran's options.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always seen the Guard as huge, monolithic bloc. While the guys may come from a million worlds, they're more similar in equipment, doctrine, and tactics than different.

This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special. They should be perfectly ordinary in as many ways as possible. To me, the point is that Guardsmen are all the same - interchangeable, faceless, soulless dog soldiers who give their lives in service to the military machine of the Imperium.

That's an interesting view. How do you reconcile that with the fluff which generally paints Guard Regiments as being drastically different?

I chalk it up to writer's hyperbole, kind of like how the US is "winning" in "the War on Terror".

I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

When every Guard army is special, with Drop Troops and COD being the order of the day, they're no longer the Guard for which the Fluff was originally written.

What level do you think 40K abstracts things at? What level should it abstract things at?

At one end we have Infinity, Necromunda and 2nd edition which are much less abstracted and tend toward the ground scale = figure scale and 1 shot = 1 shot end of the spectrum and at the other end we have the cardboard chit based hex wargames.

I think most players prefer a middle-ground approach. I think that there's considerable disagreement about the level to which 40K is abstracted or should be abstracted. Part of this is because GW never set their goals out clearly (unlike, for example, the Battlefleet Gothic rulebook where the issue is discussed and justified).

Wehrkind wrote:To take the liberty of speaking for John, I get the feeling he really dislikes options in general. My guess is his perfect codex would be extremely set, sort of like the Necron codex. No wargear, no special rules, just a hand full of units.

Almost. My "perfect" Codex is pretty close to what we got with the Chaos Codex - lots of Fluff, lots of pictures, minimal special rules, and a nearly idiot-proof army list only provide the minimum necessary differentiation and options. In many ways, this is basically the same as the Rulebook lists that we started with in 40k3.

I think that the excess of rules only creates confusion where none is necessary. When everybody has huge special rules, nobody has special rules. A simple +1 to a stat gets lost in the shuffule of everybody having inflated stats. Having a USR is meaningless in the context of armies and units each having a half-page of special rules or against/within armies loaded to the gills with USRs.

In other words, I would prefer to see a *minimalist* approach, with a cleaner design philosophy, similar to BFG or Epic 40k / Epic Armageddon.

Asmodai wrote:What level do you think 40K abstracts things at? What level should it abstract things at?

At one end we have Infinity, Necromunda and 2nd edition which are much less abstracted and tend toward the ground scale = figure scale and 1 shot = 1 shot end of the spectrum and at the other end we have the cardboard chit based hex wargames.

I grew up playing both. But I always enjoyed playing Car Wars to Star Fleet Battles, and OGRE to ASL. For example, whenever I played SFB, I always wondered "If I'm the Captain or Fleet Commander, why is it that I'm doing the work of an engine room technician when Picard can just say 'Make it so!' and it just happens?"

As I've gotten older, I've found that I lack the time and patience for high-detail rulesets. To me, high-detail speaks of laziness, because the designer has failed to do his job and remove the unnecessary clutter that all too easily creeps in to turn what should be an enjoyable, relaxing hour leisure into drudgery and minutiae.

So if we're talking extremes, I'd rather be gaming with chits. And in many ways, I see minis as big, pretty 3-D chits, so this accounts for much of my gaming bias.

So getting back to 40k, when you look at the weapon ranges and how things work, I conclude that rules-wise 40k is fundamentally a cardboard chit game because of the ground scale. Indeed, I think 40k should be a 3mm game, rather than a 30mm game.

Of course, I also grew up as a scale modeler, so I really like the 30mm models. They're beautiful, and I derive a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction from having a nice army.

But to me, from a playability standpoint, I'd like to see a cleaner ruleset. It learns quicker, plays faster, and leaves more time for shooting the breeze with your teammates and gaming partners, rather than looking things up in books.

Thanks for the reply. It helps to understand where you're coming from.

I'm from the opposite train of thought. I like the simulation to feel authentic (hence why I like things like finding real line of sight from a model's eye view, calculating hit modifiers on that basis, etc.).

I don't think there's any ruleset that could fully reconcile the tensions between our outlooks.

Asmodai, do you play Flames of War? If so, do you have problems with the way it feels?

As you might expect, I like FoW.

I'm interested in FoW, but I haven't got around to it yet. I've got a massive painting backlog (I'm working on Imperial Guard now, after that I've got Eldar, Empire and Dwarfs ), so I'm resisting the urge to start new projects until it's reached more sane proportions.

Once that happens I do play to pick up the big British mechanized infantry army box and a few Crusaders.

Haha, I know that siren song all too well. 2 years ago, I resolved to cut back on deadwood projects, and I'm making some fair progress on the stuff that remains.

I would agree.

But Airbore, Rangers, Armored Cav, Engineers, Spotters, etc. are almost entirely Veterans / Elites that you're talking about, rather than ordinary Platoons.

And even then, every single one of them is still a Rifleman first.

It seems to me you're using the FOC in FoW as a guide to what is elite or not.

Airborne is not full of veterans or elites, it is a school any MOS can go to, even a cook (or truck driver, which was my MOS). It isn't an easy school or one that everyone gets a chance to do, but by no means are they elite or veteran, IMHO (Capt Winters aside).

Armored Cav is not elite. I served with the 3rd ACR for three years. Cav Scout is just a basic combat MOS, just like the afore mentioned rifleman (aka light infantry). I knew alot of em and they were not elite (although if you aren't cav, you aren't gak, as the saying goes).

Engineers are not elite. Have much love for the engineers and their toys but they are far from elite. I do wish there was something in 40k that resembled them (like FoW).

Spotters are not elite. One of my squad leaders was a re-speced artillery spotter. He was not elite.

Rangers are elite. They go through a much more rigorous and longer training. None of the other things you listed compare at all IRL.

I think you're using Elite in a different way than I'm using it. By "Elite", I mean "uncommon" or "special-skilled", per the 40k FOC slot. I believe that you're using Elite in a military sense as a designation for Special Forces.

So by that measure, in a game oriented around ground combat, Airborne / AirCav / ArmoredCav / Engineers etc. would more naturally map to some form of Imperial Guard Veterans in an "Elite" slot, as opposed to Platoons in a Troops slot.

@JohnhwangDD sorry about the heated post earily looks like they deleted it

Asmodai wrote:Thanks for the reply. It helps to understand where you're coming from.

I'm from the opposite train of thought. I like the simulation to feel authentic (hence why I like things like finding real line of sight from a model's eye view, calculating hit modifiers on that basis, etc.).

I don't think there's any ruleset that could fully reconcile the tensions between our outlooks.

And that's kind of the great 40k challenge isn't it. It wants to be all things to all players (veterans and noobs, friendly play and tournaments, abstract quick resolution and simulationist crunch) but that's pretty much impossible.

@skullsplitter - as they nuked whatever it was that I did to cause you to get upset, I guess it's all OK. I'm sorry for winding you up.

So by that measure, in a game oriented around ground combat, Airborne / AirCav / ArmoredCav / Engineers etc. would more naturally map to some form of Imperial Guard Veterans in an "Elite" slot, as opposed to Platoons in a Troops slot.

I disagree to an extent (at least in terms of RL). Airborne, AirCav and Armored Cav are not usually deployed in small units in a support role to platoons of ground forces, they are usually a force unto themselves, seperate and distinct (atleast in relation to the typical size of a 40k battle). This is the type of thing the doctrines rules does a much better job of emulating, rather then just relagating these types of units to elites (which isn't accurate at all in terms or Rl or 40k).

Now engineers (and the afore mentioned spotters), I can see them being an elite choice as they often are sent as small units in support of infantry (or in my case a Supply Troop), although they can most certainly be deployed in RL in the size of a typical 40k game. Having a doctrine that allowed an elite engineer unit to become a troop choice would be kinda cool.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think you're using Elite in a different way than I'm using it. By "Elite", I mean "uncommon" or "special-skilled", per the 40k FOC slot. I believe that you're using Elite in a military sense as a designation for Special Forces.

So by that measure, in a game oriented around ground combat, Airborne / AirCav / ArmoredCav / Engineers etc. would more naturally map to some form of Imperial Guard Veterans in an "Elite" slot, as opposed to Platoons in a Troops slot.

You're confusing me John. First, those units are not uncommon. Second, elite means elite - superior or best in class, which is exactly how the elite slot is described. So doctrines seems like a rather good fit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

The way I reconcile it is that SMs are much more common than the fluff (AKA propaganda) would have them. The so-called "movie marines" are about what SMs should be like if there was only 1,000 in a chapter and they had the battlefield impact they are supposed to.

In truth, SMs are an elite force in the sense of having somewhat better stats, training and equipment compared to IG, but they are not super-men, we see this every day on the battlefield (tabletop.)

This also explains why we see so many SM armies -- because there are lots of SM armies.

The Imperium is able to maintain the fiction that there are a few superhuman marines because most citizens never see any of them, only edited highlights on the TV news.

Well, suddenly 90% of my and John's arguments make sense. He want's "40k lite" or more properly "40k from the Oval Office/Command tent." He doesn't care about what the Sgt's name is, he just wants him hitting with a power fist. He doesn't care why that squad ran, just that it did, and whether or not it came back.


Personally, I like more variation. I want to be able to take a list with it's general theme and fluff, and make it my own. I want each army to play like it's own army, so much so that if I use Sisters as Counts as Marines, reading the battle report, people would know something was up without me telling them. I rather like having to know a lot about the system to really excel, as opposed to learning all the rules in a day and having the game come down to luck or terrain disposition.

Really, I think there is room for both. But not in the same system. I think to please both our camps, GW would have to have "40k Lite" and "40k ZOMG Choices!" Which might not be a bad way of going about it. The former would help new players get in (since they wouldn't have to learn a tome to play) and let people who want just smooth, streamlined game play enjoy themselves. The latter would appeal to vets who know the rules well enough that streamlining doesn't appeal to them as much as knowing whether that unit is from the 1st Tanith based on their cloaks and sniper rifles, and recognizing the differences in how they play.

It sort of reminds me of Rome and Medieval: Total War. You can do everything, from fight battles to tell cities to build sewers, or you can just manage cities and let the CPU fight, or just fight and have the CPU manage cities and army production for you, or something in between.

When you get down to it, was it not the aspect what made 40k etc. special back in the day? For me, it is always what set it apart from historical games where you had certain battles that were fought with nearly identical troops on both sides, based on what was there.

I do have to agree that Epic seems like a nice way to go. I like larger scale battles and campaigns, with specific scenarios etc. As much as I love painting and modeling the 25mm (or 30mm or whatever), if they then shrunk down to 15mm for gaming purposes, I wouldn't be so sad.
I think that is really the question though, can 25mm really do large scale battles reasonably well, or is 15mm or less needed? It seems to me that 25mm is severely limited without making such bizzare scale conventions that one wonders why they are even using such large figures. More likely 25mm is better for skirmish style engagements where individuals and squads are more personal and important than huge engagements where you have to play on a gym floor, and no one cares about how pretty a certain figure is.

Can 25mm be used successfully for large scale battles?

Yes, but not using the 40K rules.

Many historical gamers play large battles using figures from scales of 2mm up to 28mm. You obviously need more space with 28mm. However the rules make a big difference too. There are three main problems with the 40K rules that make them unsuitable for large battles.

1. Figures are moved individually.
2. Figures fight individually (for instance, arranging your troops in melee.)
3. There is too much minor variation between troops which affects things like hitting and killing and saving.

Most non-40K SF/Moderns players use smaller scales than 28mm because of weapon ranges.

Yea, that's what I was thinking. I started gaming as a lad with <=15mm games, mostly Civil War with Fire and Fury and micro armor. Now, this was over a decade ago, and when I went to the HMGS East convention in the spring I found a lot of the rules had shifted towards larger figures and a 40k/activation melding. Of course, there was also like 12" of snow that weekend, so over half the games were not running.
I think you hit the nail on the head though, that modern/SciFi games don't work well in 25mm due to weapons ranges. 40k's squad/individual structure also causes problems.
I think Warhammer Fantasy works pretty well since everything moves as groups, and so abstractions such as "Every figure is 10 men" work out. I remember the old AD&D Battle System worked similarly. Though, I think the individuals in WHFB work differently (I am a little uncertain there, not playing WHFB).

I would like to try Epic sometime if I can talk one of the guys in the store into bringing some armies, assuming they have them.

Wehrkind wrote:Well, suddenly 90% of my and John's arguments make sense. He want's "40k lite" or more properly "40k from the Oval Office/Command tent." He doesn't care about what the Sgt's name is, he just wants him hitting with a power fist. He doesn't care why that squad ran, just that it did, and whether or not it came back.


Personally, I like more variation. I want to be able to take a list with it's general theme and fluff, and make it my own. I want each army to play like it's own army, so much so that if I use Sisters as Counts as Marines, reading the battle report, people would know something was up without me telling them. I rather like having to know a lot about the system to really excel, as opposed to learning all the rules in a day and having the game come down to luck or terrain disposition.

Really, I think there is room for both. But not in the same system. I think to please both our camps, GW would have to have "40k Lite" and "40k ZOMG Choices!" Which might not be a bad way of going about it. The former would help new players get in (since they wouldn't have to learn a tome to play) and let people who want just smooth, streamlined game play enjoy themselves. The latter would appeal to vets who know the rules well enough that streamlining doesn't appeal to them as much as knowing whether that unit is from the 1st Tanith based on their cloaks and sniper rifles, and recognizing the differences in how they play.

It sort of reminds me of Rome and Medieval: Total War. You can do everything, from fight battles to tell cities to build sewers, or you can just manage cities and let the CPU fight, or just fight and have the CPU manage cities and army production for you, or something in between.

When you get down to it, was it not the aspect what made 40k etc. special back in the day? For me, it is always what set it apart from historical games where you had certain battles that were fought with nearly identical troops on both sides, based on what was there.

I do have to agree that Epic seems like a nice way to go. I like larger scale battles and campaigns, with specific scenarios etc. As much as I love painting and modeling the 25mm (or 30mm or whatever), if they then shrunk down to 15mm for gaming purposes, I wouldn't be so sad.
I think that is really the question though, can 25mm really do large scale battles reasonably well, or is 15mm or less needed? It seems to me that 25mm is severely limited without making such bizzare scale conventions that one wonders why they are even using such large figures. More likely 25mm is better for skirmish style engagements where individuals and squads are more personal and important than huge engagements where you have to play on a gym floor, and no one cares about how pretty a certain figure is.

Very interesting. I understand now why I am anathema to Johns train of thought in many posts. It is the 'simpling' of the rules that IMO are driving 40k into the ground. Many of us were attracted to the complex system and now don't like playing as much with the rules dumbed down. Tournaments are down and sales are down. It's like the old Decipher Star Wars game. That game had a strong following and a complex system to play. When Wizards took over the Star Wars CCG game, they simplified the rules and gameplay and the game tanked. Many of my 40k playing friends have been turned off by the game while still trying to hold on to it in some way. I think we are missing the complexity, even of 3rd edition, and hoping for a return to it. I don't know how long we will wait around for it though and it might be to late as is.

I hate painting small figs.

I like painting 28mm figs. I like big battles, I am a 20 year vet, and like the streamlined rules. Why play Warrior with all of it's tables and stats, when I can play dbm, and the end result is about the same?

I also think that it is very apparent that the army books play quite different from each other. Tau are not Tyranids, are not IG, are not Marines, are not Orks. It is becoming more and more apparent that they are trying to bring more focus to how each plays, just like they are doing in WHFB. It is irritating some people, but I think we need it.

I would really submit that it is less the dumbing down of the rules, than the rules being less than concise, not FAQ'd to fix obvious problems, and a lack of balance in the codexes that leads people to play a relatively few "perceived" competitive armies. When you feel you have no chance of winning, or come to rules arguments time and time again that are never solved while you play against the same two armies over and over,.. people will leave the hobby.

There is a difference between "dumbing down" and streamlining/simplification. DBA/DBM is a good example of historical rules that are simpler to play then their predecessors yet give very satisfying tactical games. (There are still many players of Warrior and WRG 6th and 7th too.)

The rules definitely need to be better written, we have discussed it so many times on Dakka and always come to the conclusion that GW won't because they don't think it matters. If you look at rules like Warmaster Ancients it's clear that GW can write rules well if they want to.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a difference between "dumbing down" and streamlining/simplification. DBA/DBM is a good example of historical rules that are simpler to play then their predecessors yet give very satisfying tactical games. (There are still many players of Warrior and WRG 6th and 7th too.)

Coming from the historical end of the hobby also, I have to call you on this. DBx is popular among DBx fans, yes, but it's otherwise regarded as an incredibly poorly written set of rules. Barker-ese is a common line heard to describe the incredibly terse language used in the rulebooks. WAB is infinitely more popular as a tourney game over the in the US in my experience. The main reasons I've gotten are better written and more easily read rules. Also from what I understand, DBx has been re-written several times to remove "ambiguities" in the rules that only ended up continually cluttering the rules and making them unreadable by the average gamer.

I have been really happy with the current flow and design change of 40k. I like that the army lists are flexible but not overly complex.

My complaint about 40k in the recent years was that things where a little too fluid. I like a lot of options, but unfortunately in older codexes you see a lot of "no-brainer" choices. The new codexes might not succeed 100 percent, but at least there is an attempt to have units balanced with each other and the factions have a distinctive play style.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

This argument is kind of unfair, because they where damned as soon as they released the Angles of Death Codex in Second Edition.

If it was up to me, all the variant SM chapters would be regulated to PDF downloads, and I am a Dark Angel player.

However, it seems that Eldar, Chaos, and Orks, all have lists that are variable enough to field multiple "themed" competitive lists.

>>Coming from the historical end of the hobby also, I have to call you on this. DBx is popular among DBx fans, yes, but it's otherwise regarded as an incredibly poorly written set of rules. Barker-ese is a common line heard to describe the incredibly terse language used in the rulebooks.

I did a textual analysis of representative samples of DBA and a couple of other rules sets.

DBA scored over 13 on the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade level test, indicating a level of complexity that is suitable for people with 2-4 years of university. The other rules were about 8.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with the grammar of DBA, but it is too complicated for a lot of readers to understand, because they don't have the required level of education. That does not reflect on the quality of the rule mechanics, but on the way they are explained.

As for ambiguities, no human language is free of them. 40K has been through 4 editions and still abounds with ambiguities.

I would certainly hope that a major internanal corporation with 30 years experience of writing rules could manage to put out a clearer set than some guy in his garage.

Kilkrazy wrote:As for ambiguities, no human language is free of them. 40K has been through 4 editions and still abounds with ambiguities.

I would certainly hope that a major international corporation with 30 years experience of writing rules could manage to put out a clearer set than some guy in his garage.

Ahh, yes, Kilkrazy, but you're operating under the false assumption that GW employs editors or even hires them temporarily.

Double post

GW can write rules well -- look at Warmaster Ancients. They simply choose not to bother for 40K.

Kilkrazy wrote:>>Coming from the historical end of the hobby also, I have to call you on this. DBx is popular among DBx fans, yes, but it's otherwise regarded as an incredibly poorly written set of rules. Barker-ese is a common line heard to describe the incredibly terse language used in the rulebooks.

I did a textual analysis of representative samples of DBA and a couple of other rules sets.

DBA scored over 13 on the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade level test, indicating a level of complexity that is suitable for people with 2-4 years of university. The other rules were about 8.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with the grammar of DBA, but it is too complicated for a lot of readers to understand, because they don't have the required level of education. That does not reflect on the quality of the rule mechanics, but on the way they are explained.

As for ambiguities, no human language is free of them. 40K has been through 4 editions and still abounds with ambiguities.

I would certainly hope that a major internanal corporation with 30 years experience of writing rules could manage to put out a clearer set than some guy in his garage.

I dont know what that game or that particular method of evaluating complexity, and I know there are exceptions to everything. I thought it was worth mentioning that most of the people Ive played who are better at wargames than me aren't college graduates. I dont know much about the topic, but I'm not sure if the sort of education that I got at the university level really is applicable to comprehension of rules.

Flesch-Kincaid is a text analysis process built into MS Word and recognised by the US Government for evaluating the understandability of text in contracts such as insurance policies.

The grade level reflects the US scholastic grade required to be able to understand the text.

Understanding the text is not the same as understanding the rules, of course. For example, while 40K is written in fairly simple language, the contradictions, ambiguities and lack of definition make some of the rules very hard to understand.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW can write rules well -- look at Warmaster Ancients. They simply choose not to bother for 40K.

Almost everything else they've done is higher quality -- Epic Armageddon, BF:G, Mordheim, Space Hulk, Talisman, WarhammerQuest, WAB, and even WFB. It really is ironic that their flagship game is easily the worst-written they produce. Ultimately, there has to be a "good enough" factor involved with 40K. There's no other explanation, given a staff of professional game designers and twenty years of time.

Well obviously it's because there's plenty of evidence to suggest the causation between good rules writing and sales. Just like this chart shows:

I think if 40k had been on one track as long as WHFB, it would be probably in a good state right now. The problem is that they did a reboot, then found a lot of errors in the way the game was played with the new rules. They have been trying to fix those issues, and bring more to the fore, but in doing so run into a lot of consistencies. This last edition had a lot of clarifications and additions to the game, but they added in a lot of new problems. If 5th can clear up a good amount of them, we would be off to a good start. Then if they would just FAQ those things that are problems...... all we can do is wait and see.

Toreador wrote:If 5th can clear up a good amount of them, we would be off to a good start. Then if they would just FAQ those things that are problems...... all we can do is wait and see.

That's your favorite thing isn't it? How long are we supposed to wait?

You're not the only one either, Toreador. A number of you seem to think that good rules are something that GW will achieve "once all the codices are redone". Just wait until the 5th edition comes out and all the codices are redone and then we'll have a decent game! Everything will be all right once we get to Tir Asleen! Newsflash: that's never gonna happen. Constant churning of the rules means that there will ALWAYS be armies whose codices "still need to be redone".

how many editions of WHFB are there like 7 ,from what people say its a good system so maybe by then when 40k is at 7 or 6 it well be good .
now what do you guys think of this one
#5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)

you think good or bad?

skullspliter888 wrote:how many editions of WHFB are there like 7 ,from what people say its a good system so maybe by then when 40k is at 7 or 6 it well be good .
now what do you guys think of this one
#5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)

you think good or bad?

I actually suggested that in the Rules Development forum here, and got shot down.

I think it would be a workable solution and would work well to represent the ability for Snipers to hit holes in armour, and the greater penetrative power of a Long-Las with hotshot vs. a regular Lasgun.

DarthDiggler wrote:Very interesting. I understand now why I am anathema to Johns train of thought in many posts. It is the 'simpling' of the rules that IMO are driving 40k into the ground. Many of us were attracted to the complex system and now don't like playing as much with the rules dumbed down. Tournaments are down and sales are down. It's like the old Decipher Star Wars game. That game had a strong following and a complex system to play. When Wizards took over the Star Wars CCG game, they simplified the rules and gameplay and the game tanked. Many of my 40k playing friends have been turned off by the game while still trying to hold on to it in some way. I think we are missing the complexity, even of 3rd edition, and hoping for a return to it. I don't know how long we will wait around for it though and it might be to late as is.

Yeah, this is the kind of loaded language that makes conversations like these very hard.

‘Dumbed down’ implies the rules are producing simpler play, with less strategy and skill. With my experience in 4th ed there’s a learning curve in playing the game that never used to exist, as people have to learn the value of maneuver and mixed unit tactics. It isn’t particularly deep, but it sure plays a lot deeper than 2nd and 3rd ed games. There people would go away and play with their army lists for a couple of days, and turn up with a twinked out lists, plonk them down on the field and go to town and be as likely to win as their veteran opponent. In 2nd ed, at least, there was a little mobility and adaptability possible (though not much), come 3rd ed 8 year olds could dominate as much as anyone else, either running rhinos straight up the field or standing completely still and firing off their mass of heavy weapons. There was a lot of rules and a lot of options, but the most successful play revolved around one-dimensional strategies with little skill in their successful execution.

I’m not saying the new rules are wonderful for the simple reason that they aren’t wonderful, they’re often poorly worded, poorly thought out and inconsistent. But the rules have never been particularly good, they just used to be a lot bigger.

‘Streamlining’ is a much more accurate term for the recent rules approach.


And it’s a big mistake to assume that the poor sales of the last few years are the result of GW’s rules changes. 40k has never had particularly good rules, and sold pretty well. But what they have been in the past is a lot cheaper and the only fish in the tank. There’s also the LotR thing, and some natural level of sales reduction in the newer US market. There are a lot of possible reasons that people aren’t buying new stuff, assuming that they’re turning away for the same reason as your personal bugbear smacks of narcissism.

All I have is time...

Been playing games for close to 30 years now, and I have never found a "perfect" rules set in anything I played. It's kinda like movies. I don't really need a deep plot or intricate story lines all the time. What counts is if I enjoyed myself. I still enjoy 40k, and a myriad of other games, so yeah, I have time to wait. I had fun playing WHFB back in the 80's, but it now is probably the best it has ever been. It's not like I waited. I just kept playing and eventually it came to this point. Being in the infantry for 8 years, I guess you learn a lot of patience.

And I think in a way it is because of some of the rules changes. We didn't have this big ol nasty net back in the day, and we sat around a shop, or someones house and argued rules. If we came to impasses we usually house ruled it. It was usually centered around one game shop, and any games or tournaments played at the shop and most people were familiar with all the house rules. We didn't really have an expectation of FAQs, or fixes. We played with what we had, and fixed what we needed to.

Now with more emphasis pushed onto tournament play and a whole world wide system that anyone can show up at a shop and play with anoyone without really having to do the whole "house rule" thing, I think it becomes more dramatic when rules have loopholes or errors. We want instant gratification, we want the designers to fix things now.

And really, there are only two real choices. Either quit, or wait and see.

If I ever meet JohnHwangDD at a tourney, I hope I'm playing an all-Last Chancer list with magnetizable switchy upgrades that are WYSIWYG but very difficult to see.

And every singly one of them will be psychic.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

Meh.

The SM are powerful enough to be able to brush off Inquisitors to a certain extent, allowing them to make certain limited deviances from the Codex Astartes - Ravenwing / Deathwing / Assault Veterans / Baal Predators. These are relatively small, and to some extent, would appear to be Codex to the casual observer. Obvious major deviances get Chapters wiped out when they are discovered by the Inquisition. IOW, if the Inquisition ever found out about the Fallen / Red Thirst, the DA / BA would be at extreme risk of being purged. Also, it is no accident that the actual purging is done by brother marines, as a way to limit visibility outside the Astartes.

The IG are much weaker than the Inquisition, so they need to follow things more rigidly.

With respect to the UM, it has been stated that something like 70% of the Geneseed in use is UM-based. Further, the overwhelming majority of SM Chapters conform to the Codex (or at least have the good sense to appear to do so when an Inquisitor is around and about). The SM are very nearly perfectly uniform for 90+% of what they are and what they do.

If the SM can't vary, why should IG be even more variable.

As an example, why should IG be able to shoot 12" in cover, when the superhuman power, centuries of experience, extensive continuous training, and augmented abilities of a SM don't allow it? You have SM Devastators with several human lifetimes worth of actual combat experience, built upon many more human lifetimes worth of training and drill, and yet they can't do this...

I'll be very satisified to see Doctrines go away for the most part.

Wehrkind wrote:Well, suddenly 90% of my and John's arguments make sense. He want's "40k lite" or more properly "40k from the Oval Office/Command tent."

He doesn't care about what the Sgt's name is, he just wants him hitting with a power fist. He doesn't care why that squad ran, just that it did, and whether or not it came back.

Really, I think there is room for both. But not in the same system.

I think that is really the question though, can 25mm really do large scale battles reasonably well,

Yeah, I like grand sweep viewed from orbit.

You named your IG minis?!? None of my guys have names - they're an army.

I agree. Different systems for different purposes.

As noted on scale, 25mm isn't suitable for large scale tabletop gaming unless your "gaming table" is a warehouse floor.

Savnock wrote:If I ever meet JohnHwangDD at a tourney, I hope I'm playing an all-Last Chancer list with magnetizable switchy upgrades that are WYSIWYG but very difficult to see.

And every singly one of them will be psychic.

Go for it.

Just be aware that I'll be fielding a "counts as" list.

The IG are much weaker than the Inquisition, so they need to follow things more rigidly.

What the hell are you talking about? Why would the Inquisition care if an IG battalion was mechanized/drop troop/light infantry (or any of the other doctrines in the IG codex). Infact, they apparently don't care because all of the doctrines are based on actual units in the fluff.

Sorry John but your argument here is very flawed. If you want to argue that doctrines are hard to balance and/or don't fit the new streamlined vision of Jervis, that is one thing. I flat out disagree and I'd guess 99% of the player base would as well, but there's atleast some argument to make there. But the IG doctrines are very much based on the background, almost to a fault.

If the SM can't vary, why should IG be even more variable.

Well for one, SM are variable, even the ones based on Ultra geneseed.

But even if SM weren't variable (or become so, say in 5th ed), it is a very easy question to answer: because there's alot more variation between IG regiments and alot more IG regiments then SM chapters. There's what, 1000 SM chapters with 1000 marines each. There's quite abit more IG regiments, each one as much or more tied to the environment they train in and defend then the Space Marines are. As well as long standing traditions and doctrines that very from regiment to regiment (unlike the Codex most chapters adhere too). That's why the Steel Legion are so very different from Catachan Devils. Or Harkoni warhawks are so different from Death Corp of Krieg. Infact, the fluff for all these armies points to a much more variable set of doctrines and equipement then you will ever find in the Space Marines. All of the above is right there in the background, I suggest taking time away from your grey marines to take a look.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

Meh.

The SM are powerful enough to be able to brush off Inquisitors to a certain extent, allowing them to make certain limited deviances from the Codex Astartes - Ravenwing / Deathwing / Assault Veterans / Baal Predators. These are relatively small, and to some extent, would appear to be Codex to the casual observer. Obvious major deviances get Chapters wiped out when they are discovered by the Inquisition. IOW, if the Inquisition ever found out about the Fallen / Red Thirst, the DA / BA would be at extreme risk of being purged. Also, it is no accident that the actual purging is done by brother marines, as a way to limit visibility outside the Astartes.

The IG are much weaker than the Inquisition, so they need to follow things more rigidly.

With respect to the UM, it has been stated that something like 70% of the Geneseed in use is UM-based. Further, the overwhelming majority of SM Chapters conform to the Codex (or at least have the good sense to appear to do so when an Inquisitor is around and about). The SM are very nearly perfectly uniform for 90+% of what they are and what they do.

If the SM can't vary, why should IG be even more variable.

As an example, why should IG be able to shoot 12" in cover, when the superhuman power, centuries of experience, extensive continuous training, and augmented abilities of a SM don't allow it? You have SM Devastators with several human lifetimes worth of actual combat experience, built upon many more human lifetimes worth of training and drill, and yet they can't do this...

I'll be very satisified to see Doctrines go away for the most part.

Wait - what? I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something, but at any point in your rambling incoherent response did you ever address my point? Apparently logical argument isn't exactly your strong suit JohnHwang, so I'll restate it very simply for you. 3000 marines = 3 army lists. 1,000,000,000+ guardsmen = 1 army list. Are you actually arguing that there is more variation among those 3000 marines than among the 1,000,000,000+ guardsmen?

This thread has gotten well away from the original subject. Please stay on topic, and feel free to start additional discussions on these side topics in another forum (and you may want to post links to those discussions here in this thread).

Thank you!

(Edited to get it back on topic) Someone mentioned modifiers to target priority checks. I'd love to see this take place for assault units being near you, vehicles tank shocking, the unit attempting the test being under fire or similar situations. Does anyone have any details on how this will work, or theories on it?

Yea, I really can't get behind IG having less variance than Marines. 1000 Chapters, all started from the same organizations, vs literally billions of planet's PDF's, some of which planets hadn't seen the Imperium for millenia before the Emperor stopped by, or the warp storm cleared up, etc. Tie in the fact that some come from planets that are densly populated, some come from planets without light etc., I just don't see how you couldn't have tremendous variation without taking all the cadets to one or two central training stations.
I mean, Earth has all manner of different armies that fight better or worse in different manners due to where they come from and how they are trained.

I would say the Imperium's armies look a lot more like a cross section of Earth's various armies at around 300 BC. Some cultures favor heavy infantry, some light, some naval engagements, etc.

@Asmodai wow you got shoot down .
Asmodai wrote I think it would be a workable solution and would work well to represent the ability for Snipers to hit holes in amour, and the greater penetrative power of a Long-Las with hotshot vs. a regular Lasgun.

I totally agree with you snipers on the battle field most of the time are highly skilled in there craft so with rending i think this would be good to say wow he got a head shot.
and maybe a new pinning table or modifier like -1Ld or some thing. i think most army's have snipers in there codex? so this would be good for all armys.

edit not all armys choas, necrons, dark eldar, nids, not sure on orks

The other advantage is that it would increase the odds of snipers scoring a casualty and thus bring their psychology role into effect.

It would also add some nice variety into the game by having anti-Terminator weapons that aren't also anti-tank weapons.

winterman wrote:I suggest taking time away from your grey marines to take a look.

It has been a very long time since I've gone through the Fluff in my 2E IG Codex.

But FWIW, for the past few months, pretty much *all* that I've been doing is working on IG stuff. I recently finished 3 Chimeras, a semi-scratch-built counts as Chimera, a scratch-built a Hydra Flak tank (despite a total lack of Flyers in my playgroup), and am working on an counts-as Indirect Basilisk with enclosed crew compartment.

Once that is built, I'll be semi-scratch-building a couple Hellhounds and an Atlas ARV (count as another Chimera).

Then I'll get around to my new CSM force or maybe my grey SM.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It has been a very long time since I've gone through the Fluff in my 2E IG Codex.

But FWIW, for the past few months, pretty much *all* that I've been doing is working on IG stuff. I recently finished 3 Chimeras, a semi-scratch-built counts as Chimera, a scratch-built a Hydra Flak tank (despite a total lack of Flyers in my playgroup), and am working on an counts-as Indirect Basilisk with enclosed crew compartment.

Once that is built, I'll be semi-scratch-building a couple Hellhounds and an Atlas ARV (count as another Chimera).

Then I'll get around to my new CSM force or maybe my grey SM.

Way to get back on topic

I saw the rumor on Warseer about the combat resolution for assault being similar to Fantasy. I am not familiar with fantasy rules. How does the combat resolution work in fantasy? I assume since formations are more regimented that there may be parts that do not apply.

Quick rundown of Fantasy combat res:

Each side performs the following calculation:

Number of wounds inflicted
Number of ranks*
If the unit has a standard, +1*
Unit is in the flank: +1*
Unit is in the rear: +2*
Items which improve combat resolution: special*

Then compare totals. The side with the lowest total makes a Ld check and adds the difference between the two results. Compare to units leadership.

EG: High Elves, 2 ranks, standard, inflicted 4 wounds: 7
Goblins: 4 ranks, inflicted 2 wounds: 6

The goblins lose by one, so roll Ld (on 2d6) and add 1 (the difference between the two results), then compare to their leadership. If the test is failed, they break and run.

Note that only "wounds inflicted" applies to 40K as-is.

Viperion

P.S I know there's a bit more to it than that, but for this discussion that will be relevant enough

I thought JJ wanted to stream line 40k so that his son could play it? How will it making easier if you use Fantasy rules, some kids now a days need a computer to do easy math.

Modifiers for the grieivouness of a loss?
I wonder if Fearlessness will have any new drawbacks, given the increased vulnerability of non-fearless units to lost assault. With rending downgraded and Leadership becoming more powerful, Plague Marines are going to be getting more useful than they already are.

On a separate note:

Walkers should totally be allowed to score when taken as troops. They're maneuverable in cover like infantry, able to change their profile easier than other vehicles, etc. The idea that only human-sized units can score is ridiculous. I guess if TMCs are out then walkers are too, but I don't like it much.

I don't see why any military forces should not be able to hold an objective in terms of realism, but it's different in the game.

It is a game mechanism for the use of the designer to manipulate the players' behaviour by making some units more or less desireable.

The problem is simply that there is imbalance in the points values Restricting the scoring units to a very small selection of the total army list biases results more strongly against armies with weak/over-costed troops.

Thanks Viperion. Unless 40k starts forming ranks for assault kinda hard to see any way to make a substantive change. Seems pretty similar to me. I guess I will just be waiting til 5th comes out.

sebster wrote:And it’s a big mistake to assume that the poor sales of the last few years are the result of GW’s rules changes. 40k has never had particularly good rules, and sold pretty well. But what they have been in the past is a lot cheaper and the only fish in the tank. There’s also the LotR thing, and some natural level of sales reduction in the newer US market. There are a lot of possible reasons that people aren’t buying new stuff...

I'll second that. A lot of GW's sales hits are due to near constant price hikes, draconian IP enforcement, GW personally killing Internet sales in the US, poor customer service to the independent retailers, GW renting MALL SPACE of all things for their retail stores... the list goes on.

Pissing off the loyal long time customers is in no way restricted to rules sets. Yes the rules suck in some aspects but it's the least of the reason for sales declines IMHO.

ptlangley wrote:Thanks Viperion. Unless 40k starts forming ranks for assault kinda hard to see any way to make a substantive change. Seems pretty similar to me. I guess I will just be waiting til 5th comes out.

Or they could just use the current outnumbering mechanic, and apply that to combat resolution; +1 for twice as many models, +2 for three times and all that.

Iron_Wolves wrote:I thought JJ wanted to stream line 40k so that his son could play it? How will it making easier if you use Fantasy rules, some kids now a days need a computer to do easy math.

No, not really.

He realized 40k had become quite insular, and most publications assumed the audience had a lot of knowledge already, knowledge new publications should contain. He used the example of his son him asking which model gun represented which gun in the rules, as there were no pictures in the Marine codex showing which one related to which.

At the same time the codices are being designed with new priorities. The old style of piling in as much cool stuff regardless of how it fits has gone, and has been replaced by more streamlined codices, limiting options to encourage games based more around the preferred playing style of maneuver and unit synergy.

Whether or not this has been successful is another argument (I’d say it’s made some good steps, but created few new problems along the way), but it really, really has nothing to do with making the game simple enough for young kids to play. This is particularly clear when you look at the tactical ability needed to play with the dominant lists of 3rd ed, static shooting Iron Warriors or marine SAFH, and compare them to 3 falcon elder or nidzilla, which are very powerful but can easily come apart in the hands of moderately skilled players.

I don't know that if GW dropped LotR we'd necessarily see
them apply that labor to 40k and WHFB. They'd just fire
people.

If LOTR loses more money than the contract is worth, they'll
drop it. Right now, they seem to pull their weight comparatively.

to my understanding, LotR sells much better in the UK and austrailia then most other countries. I'd be suprised to say the least if it's enough to pull LotR out for 10 more years...

I'd be willing to bet it becomes the next specialist game.

The LoTR licence will have a time limit. GW may not be able to publish it as a specialist game.


The release of The Hobbit should give the game a new lease of life but cannot be expected for 2-3 years.

Kilkrazy wrote:The LoTR licence will have a time limit. GW may not be able to publish it as a specialist game.


The release of The Hobbit should give the game a new lease of life but cannot be expected for 2-3 years.

The license was recently repurchased for another 3 or so years.

That will tide them over to the release of the first Hobbit movie at least. They probably need another licence for The Hobbit.

oh look, it seems to have already come out!