Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Light Infantry and Heavy Infantry, actually.
Kind of like what other strategy games do.

Cavalry used to be a beast type unit too, iirc.
WHFB had the Monstrous Infantry unit type, to cover things like Ogres.
Bikes and Jetbikes used to be their own thing in earlier editions.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The difference is that those larger models have no alternative, whereas the infantry models do. If you're really keen on pushing it, run a poll about movement trays and see the results.

Infantry models do in the current rules. There is nothing inherent about the concept of infantry that requires it to be the case.

Well maybe they have the Infantry keyword in 9th, but my reference for 8th doesn't (and neither do the other battlesuits other than the stealth ones, which are much smaller. So guess what, 9th Ed is wrong!

Lolwut. The current edition of the codex is wrong because a previous edition did something different? Clearly by that standard any edition that had facings and blast templates is wrong because my 9th edition rulebook doesn't include them. And do you still let your crisis suits take the +1 BS upgrade from the 5th edition codex?

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

So now we have infantry, big infantry, small vehicle, vehicle as unit types? Plus cavalry, aircraft, etc? How many other unit types do we need in an army-scale game like 40k, where the nuances of exactly how fast an infantry model can pivot really aren't an appropriate thing to be worrying about?

I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

BrianDavion wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

What exactly is it adding to a game where a titan can kill both of them in one shot?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

What exactly is it adding to a game where a titan can kill both of them in one shot?

A titan can kill anything in one shot. Might as well ask why bother having anything other than titans.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

What exactly is it adding to a game where a titan can kill both of them in one shot?

... your distinction between units is "can the largest weapon on the battle field reliably one shot them?

Yeah I'm gonna withdraw from this argument.....

BrianDavion wrote:
... your distinction between units is "can the largest weapon on the battle field reliably one shot them?

Yeah I'm gonna withdraw from this argument.....

No, but it's an indication of what level of detail is appropriate. When two infantry units are both titan fodder you don't need to represent the fact that one of them can pivot 15% faster than the other. When there are 2-300 infantry and/or a dozen tanks on the table you don't worry about precise firing arcs. Things that are appropriate in a 10-model skirmish game cease to be appropriate when scaled up to a game with titans and massive armies.

BrianDavion wrote:

Yeah I'm gonna withdraw from this argument.....

Yeah I'll check out of this one too, time invested will be a net loss.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

What exactly is it adding to a game where a titan can kill both of them in one shot?

While extreme, I can see the point CadianSgtBob is making.

What kind of scale is 40k supposed to be at? If it's at the kind of scale where Titans, Knights, flyers, and whole armoured squadrons are taking the field, and entire Battle Companies are being deployed, in my personal opinion, that's the kind of scale where it doesn't matter about facing, or what kind of infantry you're fielding.

If you're talking about the kind of scale where you're maybe fielding a third of a company with maybe a unit or two of auxiliary support, and there's maybe like two tanks on the field total, then that's when these sorts of infantry designations and vehicle facings can be better implemented, because the scale better supports that.

For all this talk of being "intuitive", I would say it's more "intuitive" that facings be ignored for mass combat, and introduced for skirmish combat - and those same ideas of facings to apply across the board to all units. If a unit is lucky enough to not have a "face" (say, Drop Pods, Mycetic Spores, or even specific skirmisher units which can expect to be surrounded and fight in a flexible formation, like Harlequins), then those can be given a keyword that exempts them.

Again - the important part is *agreeing what scale 40k is supposed to be operating at*, because at present, when super heavies are on the field and there's a veritable carpet of infantry, I really don't care about how they're facing, personally.

Ironically, that formula breaks down for 40k much harder than for any other game because of the variety of units.

It's a game where you either have 3 tanks (Baneblades) or 10 tanks (leman russes) and can have an army of 3 tanks facing off against an army of 10 tanks.

Should facing matter? Well, of course - the only real way to deal with the 3 large tanks is outflank them, given their thick frontal armor! Plus, there's only 3 tanks on the field so it's not too hard to track.

Should facing matter? Of course not - there are 10 tanks on the field and tracking facing for all of them is far too granular and difficult.