Switch Theme:

the role of realism in 40k  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Seconded. The game makes no sense at all.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
The cutoff is whether a unit is a LOW or not. So either the Malcador Infurnus needs to become a LOW and gain the ability to fire while in combat, or the Valdor would have to become a hs option and lose it to make them equal.


Yeah but to draw this back to the thread...

...why? And I mean from a lore / "reality of the setting" perspective, not a rules one. Because, y'know, that's the topic of the thread. Not points costs, battlefield roles, wounds, or powerlevels - those are all "crunch". We're talking about the fluff, about how well the game meets the fluff. I am giving an example of a disconnect between the fluff in the rules, and saying more rules (e.g. bringing up battlefield roles) doesn't actually solve the disconnect.

Ad I stated earlier, I think the concept is that a tank of a certain size is immune to being affected by infantry attempting to gain access from outside.

Does that concept make sense? In most cases no. If the infantry trying to get inside of a tank don't have some kind of anti tank explosives then they shouldn't even be a distraction in cc.

The most they could do is clog up the road wheels with their bodies.


The problem is that the Steel Behemoth rule has nothing to do with size (as I've illustrated before, two tanks of identical size and only difference in armament where one has Steel Behemoth and the other does not). So your explanation doesn't explain anything.

So we're back to my original assertion: this game doesn't make any damn sense and the designers don't even understand their own abstractions and how they relate to "reality".

Yeah, that's what I said.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

Martel732 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
The cutoff is whether a unit is a LOW or not. So either the Malcador Infurnus needs to become a LOW and gain the ability to fire while in combat, or the Valdor would have to become a hs option and lose it to make them equal.


Yeah but to draw this back to the thread...

...why? And I mean from a lore / "reality of the setting" perspective, not a rules one. Because, y'know, that's the topic of the thread. Not points costs, battlefield roles, wounds, or powerlevels - those are all "crunch". We're talking about the fluff, about how well the game meets the fluff. I am giving an example of a disconnect between the fluff in the rules, and saying more rules (e.g. bringing up battlefield roles) doesn't actually solve the disconnect.


BA spend two editions not being able to accomplish a single feat described in the codex on the tabletop. DA spent like 5 editions with the same problem. The lore and game basically have nothing to do with each other.


I don't know how true that is concerning your BA, or wich editions you're referring to.
But my DA? They've been described as being stubborn & intractable, fielding all termies/dreads/Land Raiders in 1st co, fielding another company of all bikes & speeders, & then eventually more was made of them possessing more plasma weaponry than other chapters. Their rules from 2e+ have increasingly represented that. Now maybe they took a break from that in 7th when I wasn't playing, but i doubt it.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I don't mean armaments. I mean getting made to look foolish on the tabletop.

BA codex: "Then the BA won mighty battle vs Eldar"

BA tabletop: tabled by turn 3 against Eldar.
   
Made in dk
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin






You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.

Yeah you should be probably screening your tanks a bit. You also shouldn't have to worry that the lone couple of Gaunts that made the charge stop your Land Raider from actually doing its job. This is not something "abstract" that should exist period.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I'd prefer to get rid of both fall back and tripointing.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Martel732 wrote:
I'd prefer to get rid of both fall back and tripointing.

I'm fine with fall back if it had some repercussions and if Fly units took a -2BS penalty if they wanna shoot.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




They will pay whatever to be able to shoot units off the table with impunity. As it is, they WANT their units wiped.
   
Made in dk
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.

Yeah you should be probably screening your tanks a bit. You also shouldn't have to worry that the lone couple of Gaunts that made the charge stop your Land Raider from actually doing its job. This is not something "abstract" that should exist period.

Then how would you suggest punishing lists without screens that consist only of Leman Russes? It's a rather disgusting list and I don't want to just sit around and get shot by it all game because I cannot win that fight, but if my opponent used all their pts on tanks I might be able to get in and tag the tanks.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Put a "storm threshold" on each vehicle. That's how many infantry contacts it takes to stop it. Infantry will have to be given a storm value as well so grots aren't better at it than terminators.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 05:36:11


 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.

Yeah you should be probably screening your tanks a bit. You also shouldn't have to worry that the lone couple of Gaunts that made the charge stop your Land Raider from actually doing its job. This is not something "abstract" that should exist period.

Then how would you suggest punishing lists without screens that consist only of Leman Russes? It's a rather disgusting list and I don't want to just sit around and get shot by it all game because I cannot win that fight, but if my opponent used all their pts on tanks I might be able to get in and tag the tanks.


Bring back old-school krak grenades where if you got a unit of 15-20 infantry into contact with the Russ it'd just die?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in se
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




Sweden

I think tanks being easier to kill in melee is a better abstraction than them being just denied shooting. In previous editions you would autotarget the rear armour in melee as weak points were easier to exploit. Now a leman russ stays at t8 in melee and is almost impossible to kill. Anti tank grenades on infantry does not help at all any more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also why id it not possible to oneshot tanks anymore? Its lame. Leads to every army needing to pump up their AT arsenal to gross proportions. A single lascannnon making a difference was cooler than needing whole batteries of devastators or predators.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 06:34:33


Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.

Yeah you should be probably screening your tanks a bit. You also shouldn't have to worry that the lone couple of Gaunts that made the charge stop your Land Raider from actually doing its job. This is not something "abstract" that should exist period.

Then how would you suggest punishing lists without screens that consist only of Leman Russes? It's a rather disgusting list and I don't want to just sit around and get shot by it all game because I cannot win that fight, but if my opponent used all their pts on tanks I might be able to get in and tag the tanks.


Bring back old-school krak grenades where if you got a unit of 15-20 infantry into contact with the Russ it'd just die?


What kind of infantry would that be?
   
Made in se
Smokin' Skorcha Driver




Sweden

Guardsmen could take krak grenades for example.

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




At least partially some of the current rules look unrealistic because they are simplifications of former rules that emphasized more the simulation aspect of the game.

For example, vehicles in melee rules. Generally speaking you dont want to melee with a tank because it is both more vulnerable and less effective in melee. It is less effective because it’s weapon systems are not designed to engage in close quarters. While you can ram and run over stuff, the effective killing power of that strategy is much less than the expected one from engaging at optimal ranges. This is already partially captured in the game. Then, close quarters also expose the vulnerabilities of the tank. This was previously represented with different armor values by side, so that melee was actually a point efficient way to dispose of a tank. Tanks cannot shoot in melee because they are more concerned with self preservation when that happens.

The problem arises when you eliminate the vulnerability aspect. If they can simply ignore those guardsmen, why on earth can’t they shoot?

For me, realism isn’t necessarily about having a lot of rules. Rather, about choosing what do you model with the rules. Rules are cumbersome and you want to have as we as possible. I see them taking out rules like different armor values and then adding a bazillion gamey special rules in the form of stratagems and special rules. The game steps away from the simulation to create artificial gotcha moments, or sort of combos, that feel like yu are playing an arcade system. That is what I dislike!
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

The reason tanks don't often travel without infantry is they can't see very well and can't go into certain places very well, meaning that infantry are required to help find the enemy and also to go places the tanks can't. They also contribute to keeping enemy anti-tank teams busy by engaging them with infantry.

In 40k, basically none of this is useful. Tanks see as well as any other unit with no restriction, and can go anywhere fearlessly except through Ruin walls. Engaging the enemy anti-tank teams with infantry isn't required, because IGOUGO means the tanks can just delete any anti-tank threat they choose without fear of retaliation - and, since they know the turn order in advance most of the time, they can hide out of LOS until it is their turn.

The abstraction that "tanks can't shoot in melee/after Falling Back" isn't even a very good abstraction, because it results in infantry literally standing in front of the tanks which is also silly and unrealistic; that's not typically how infantry advance. Indeed, standing directly in front of a tank in combat is usually quite hazardous.

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.

Yeah you should be probably screening your tanks a bit. You also shouldn't have to worry that the lone couple of Gaunts that made the charge stop your Land Raider from actually doing its job. This is not something "abstract" that should exist period.

Then how would you suggest punishing lists without screens that consist only of Leman Russes? It's a rather disgusting list and I don't want to just sit around and get shot by it all game because I cannot win that fight, but if my opponent used all their pts on tanks I might be able to get in and tag the tanks.


Bring back old-school krak grenades where if you got a unit of 15-20 infantry into contact with the Russ it'd just die?


^100% correct answer. Allow infantry with anti-materiel equipment to fething use it. Ork Tankbustas, Assault Squads and Fire Dragons suddenly only being able to use one grenade in cc against vehicles, and then none at all, is one of the absolute wost changes to 40k in the last decade.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 16:13:03


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.


I'm not going to get drawn into the realism debate, because I feel that asking for realism from our space fantasy knight ninja battle game is kind of missing the point, and because as far as I can tell GW has had inconsistencies, contradictions, and conflicts between rules and fluff for literally as long as I have been alive.

I can comment on not letting tanks operate solo in real world combat.

Basically, tanks are really mobile and really good at killing things, but have poor situational awareness. Tanks have limited fields of view, and only a handful of sets of eyes. Even with modern tools like infrared sensors, tanks are very restricted at seeing what is around them. So if you put tanks out there by themselves, they can generally kill anything they can seen, but if they are not super careful, some random private hiding in a ditch with an RPG shoots one in the back at point blank range and kills/disables it. If you have an infantry platoon walk through that area first, you have 50 sets of eyes with rifles to flush out that guy hiding in a ditch. If the infantry run into something they can't handle, like a machine gun nest, then the tanks hammer it with main gun rounds until it goes away.

So ideally, you have tanks supported by infantry mounted in vehicles that can keep up with the tanks (tracked APC's or AFV's), with the tanks handling heavy targets and providing fire support as the infantry clear buildings, check for mines/ambushes, and secure areas.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




" I feel that asking for realism from our space fantasy knight ninja battle game is kind of missing the point"

There still needs to be some kind of internal logic, so meaningful choices can exist.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Insectum7 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
You're supposed to screen your tanks against melee, the rules create a perfectly realistic situation where you cannot run all tanks without being susceptible to melee. I don't know why it's a good idea to not let tanks operate solo, but I've heard it is, 40k recreates this in an abstract manner. I don't know if GW should remove the ability to fall back and shoot for units with FLY, I am too biased to say. Please tell me off if it's not conventional to field infantry with vehicles.

Yeah you should be probably screening your tanks a bit. You also shouldn't have to worry that the lone couple of Gaunts that made the charge stop your Land Raider from actually doing its job. This is not something "abstract" that should exist period.

Then how would you suggest punishing lists without screens that consist only of Leman Russes? It's a rather disgusting list and I don't want to just sit around and get shot by it all game because I cannot win that fight, but if my opponent used all their pts on tanks I might be able to get in and tag the tanks.


Bring back old-school krak grenades where if you got a unit of 15-20 infantry into contact with the Russ it'd just die?


^100% correct answer. Allow infantry with anti-materiel equipment to fething use it. Ork Tankbustas, Assault Squads and Fire Dragons suddenly only being able to use one grenade in cc against vehicles, and then none at all, is one of the absolute wost changes to 40k in the last decade.

Aye, and give csm our fething melta bombs back!
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason tanks don't often travel without infantry is they can't see very well and can't go into certain places very well, meaning that infantry are required to help find the enemy and also to go places the tanks can't. They also contribute to keeping enemy anti-tank teams busy by engaging them with infantry.

In 40k, basically none of this is useful. Tanks see as well as any other unit with no restriction, and can go anywhere fearlessly except through Ruin walls. Engaging the enemy anti-tank teams with infantry isn't required, because IGOUGO means the tanks can just delete any anti-tank threat they choose without fear of retaliation - and, since they know the turn order in advance most of the time, they can hide out of LOS until it is their turn.

The abstraction that "tanks can't shoot in melee/after Falling Back" isn't even a very good abstraction, because it results in infantry literally standing in front of the tanks which is also silly and unrealistic; that's not typically how infantry advance. Indeed, standing directly in front of a tank in combat is usually quite hazardous.

The original idea for armored combat in 40k was based more on how tanks functioned in WW1 and WW2. Back when tanks couldn't move and fire heavy ordnance all that effectively and infantry would try to disable tanks up close with grenades or explosives if they couldn't do it from range. Tanks rarely were able to fall back and shoot in early editions after being charged since most infantry would either just wreck them, disable them (weapon destroyed or immobilized) or the tank was shaken or stunned so it couldn't shoot. Now instead of getting stunned or shaken tanks simply can't fall back and shoot.

A lot of 40k tank designs do seem to be inspired by older tank designs. The more "modern" tanks in 40k universe are largely all grav tanks which don't care so much if they are charged in the game since they can fall back and shoot.

I do think some of the larger tanks that aren't super heavies like land raiders should able to fall back and shoot personally.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Land raiders should ignore light infantry completely for all purposes. No fall back necessary.
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






 Blood Hawk wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason tanks don't often travel without infantry is they can't see very well and can't go into certain places very well, meaning that infantry are required to help find the enemy and also to go places the tanks can't. They also contribute to keeping enemy anti-tank teams busy by engaging them with infantry.

In 40k, basically none of this is useful. Tanks see as well as any other unit with no restriction, and can go anywhere fearlessly except through Ruin walls. Engaging the enemy anti-tank teams with infantry isn't required, because IGOUGO means the tanks can just delete any anti-tank threat they choose without fear of retaliation - and, since they know the turn order in advance most of the time, they can hide out of LOS until it is their turn.

The abstraction that "tanks can't shoot in melee/after Falling Back" isn't even a very good abstraction, because it results in infantry literally standing in front of the tanks which is also silly and unrealistic; that's not typically how infantry advance. Indeed, standing directly in front of a tank in combat is usually quite hazardous.

The original idea for armored combat in 40k was based more on how tanks functioned in WW1 and WW2. Back when tanks couldn't move and fire heavy ordnance all that effectively and infantry would try to disable tanks up close with grenades or explosives if they couldn't do it from range. Tanks rarely were able to fall back and shoot in early editions after being charged since most infantry would either just wreck them, disable them (weapon destroyed or immobilized) or the tank was shaken or stunned so it couldn't shoot. Now instead of getting stunned or shaken tanks simply can't fall back and shoot.

A lot of 40k tank designs do seem to be inspired by older tank designs. The more "modern" tanks in 40k universe are largely all grav tanks which don't care so much if they are charged in the game since they can fall back and shoot.

I do think some of the larger tanks that aren't super heavies like land raiders should able to fall back and shoot personally.


Let the infantry and their equipment decide whether the tank can still operate and fire, not some blanket 'can't shoot' rule.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason tanks don't often travel without infantry is they can't see very well and can't go into certain places very well, meaning that infantry are required to help find the enemy and also to go places the tanks can't. They also contribute to keeping enemy anti-tank teams busy by engaging them with infantry.

In 40k, basically none of this is useful. Tanks see as well as any other unit with no restriction, and can go anywhere fearlessly except through Ruin walls. Engaging the enemy anti-tank teams with infantry isn't required, because IGOUGO means the tanks can just delete any anti-tank threat they choose without fear of retaliation - and, since they know the turn order in advance most of the time, they can hide out of LOS until it is their turn.

The abstraction that "tanks can't shoot in melee/after Falling Back" isn't even a very good abstraction, because it results in infantry literally standing in front of the tanks which is also silly and unrealistic; that's not typically how infantry advance. Indeed, standing directly in front of a tank in combat is usually quite hazardous.

The original idea for armored combat in 40k was based more on how tanks functioned in WW1 and WW2. Back when tanks couldn't move and fire heavy ordnance all that effectively and infantry would try to disable tanks up close with grenades or explosives if they couldn't do it from range. Tanks rarely were able to fall back and shoot in early editions after being charged since most infantry would either just wreck them, disable them (weapon destroyed or immobilized) or the tank was shaken or stunned so it couldn't shoot. Now instead of getting stunned or shaken tanks simply can't fall back and shoot.

A lot of 40k tank designs do seem to be inspired by older tank designs. The more "modern" tanks in 40k universe are largely all grav tanks which don't care so much if they are charged in the game since they can fall back and shoot.

I do think some of the larger tanks that aren't super heavies like land raiders should able to fall back and shoot personally.


Let the infantry and their equipment decide whether the tank can still operate and fire, not some blanket 'can't shoot' rule.

Agreed, the close combat rules in 5th for infantry against vehicles were better than what we have now. Let grenades be used in melee at their normal stats with plus 2 strength or something. With only 1 attack per model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 16:29:51


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Remember how several people didn't catch the change to grenades in 7th from 6th? Those were great times.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




One grenade lol.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

I just want my fething melta bombs back damnit.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Your single melta bomb?
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

Beats a fething chainsword.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: