Switch Theme:

Peak 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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Rihgu wrote:


Your description here actually details a few tactical decisions that, while they may not be super narrative, seem to be what some people are looking for in 40k.
Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?
Does the chimera use maneuver to avoid the ork infantry unit, or does it try to push through directly?

It would appear in your showcase that the commander made 2 unwise tactical decisions (kept the protection of the Chimera, and charged into the ork infantry unit). Well, always time to learn for next game!

The problem here is the dissonance between what the player decides and what options would be realistically available.

"I would like to both give orders using the Chimera's radio AND stay embarked"
Well, you can't. Because I said so.

"I would like to use my armored bulk to push through the orks rather than being bogged down by axemen."
Well, you can't. Because I said so.

The game rules are actively inhibiting the tactical decisions by the commander. So when you settle for the false choice, it doesn't feel like a choice I made.
"Why did you disembark from the chimera?"
"Because the rules said I had to in order to command my troops"

It's a choice that doesn't feel tactical because the actually tactical options simply don't exist to be executed. And that was the point you missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other words, "what tactical option, would you like to execute, player?"

Answering with "I want my armored vehicles to push through the enemy lines where they lack anti-tank power" is responded to by:

"Well you can't, what else?"

"Well I would like to employ my officers in charge to command my men to clear the way for my tanks."

"Nope, can't do that tactic either"

"Well why the hell are you asking me what tactics I can use if you just outright constrain my realistic and reasonable choices?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 16:17:37


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





"I would like to both advance and also fire my weapons"
Well, you can't. Because I said so.

"I would like to both advance and charge into combat"
Well, you can't. Because I said so.

They're not *not* tactical options just because they're limited by what the game rules determine are options.

It's not very much of a decision to get to give orders AND stay embarked. You're just doing both things, there's no trade offs. Commanding vs Protection is a choice. It's not a false choice, like... "Stay protected AND command, or command and also lose protection". That choice has been made for you, by there being nothing but downsides for the "second option".

WARgame vs warGAME, I guess. From a GAME perspective, there are choices and they're not false ones, at least in the barebones context presented here. From a WAR perspective, sure, it doesn't make sense that your vehicle can't just rush through the Orks, but that's not the ruleset we're working with here.

Do you take 3-4 turns to go around the Orks with Movement or do you take 2-3 turns to charge into the orks and hope the pitiful melee/decent shooting you provide thins them enough to open up a fall back past them? That's a GAME choice.

"Well why the hell are you asking me what tactics I can use if you just outright constrain my realistic and reasonable choices?"

"Well, I kind of thought you had read the ruleset enough to know which options were available before the game."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 16:24:57


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Right. Exactly.

"Tactics" is a military term, a WAR term. Not a GAME term (at least not to me).

A "tactical" choice is a decision made in a military context.

To say it is "more (or less) tactical" to stay inside the chimera than it would be to disembark is just nonsense. It may be more or less sensible given the GAME mechanics, but it isn't a "tactics" choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote:

"Well, I kind of thought you had read the ruleset enough to know which options were available before the game."


"I did, which is why I am complaining about said ruleset tactically constraining me for no reason."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 16:27:31


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
You have a very different recollection of 2000s-era Librarium-Online, Warseer, or Dakka than I do. Especially considering the existence of meta/netlists like like Rhino Rush or Leafblower. We may not have had Facebook and Reddit for soliciting advice but it was not hard for a teenager in the 2000s to find competitive 40K lists and tactics.


Well, my comment goes way back to like early and pre-5th edition. Leafblower was 2010 and that's when people started to analyze that info. 'Ard Boyz popped up around 2007, I think. Of the 40+ year 40K history only 10 have really been like that. Of that 10 eight or so years have been under 6th and foward. It seems like so long ago, but it really wasn't.

I also want to point out that we have plenty of examples on this forum of people being dissatisfied with their current experiences with 8th/9th, going back to earlier editions, and having a better time of it. Are you suggesting that they're all playing 9th competitively, and then switching to non-competitive when they go back to 4th or 5th? I don't think that's the case; I think people are approaching older editions with the same mindset and finding it's a better fit for their expectations.


There's Competitive and competitive. The former is seeking out the best opponents and testing skill. The latter is doing your best to win a game. People hiking back to older editions have a smaller pool of people to play with and so you don't get a uniform desire to be Competitive. You just play with the people available and that's it.

So it may be a better fit for expectations which are rooted in nostalgia, but, no, they were not Competitive so to speak.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 16:48:45


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Rihgu wrote:
Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


That's not true at all.

Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

But it's not in a military context, so it's not tactics or tactical choices. It is choices that mirror tactics, at best. Hence why your reply was so frustrating. This isn't a conversation I'd engage in, as you have this context to words known only to you. If you had replied to me and said "well, tactics apply to military context's" I'd have said "okay, my post was less a direct reply to you and more directed towards the people who engaged in the "tactical decisions in 40k" thread, and your passage there just happened to show some choices that people said they'd prefer/said didn't exist" and left it at that. Because your passage really does show some interesting tabletop decisions to be thought about and made. There are pros/cons to each of the choices detailed, and given the vague context of the passage there's no obviously correct/incorrect answer (ie, false choices). It's not the "false choice" situation that the game suffers from with stratagems and command points. Of course the correct choice is to use Veterans of the Long War. It's a pure buff with no upside, I don't need to make a decision there. Of course I move onto the objective and fire through the dense cover, there's no downside since I can only have a -1 to my hit roll and I'm going to be taking it no matter what. But the question of "Do I disembark to be able to give orders" or "Do I attempt to skirt around, or charge with my Chimera?" have weight to them.

Instead it feels like we had a conversation and then you pulled out a "Well, actually, that word doesn't mean what you think it means". Cool, sorry for wasting both of our times with the interim posts.

Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules.

As does 40k:
THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE
In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Rihgu wrote:
"I would like to both advance and also fire my weapons"
Well, you can't. Because I said so.

"I would like to both advance and charge into combat"
Well, you can't. Because I said so.


Well, the difference between your examples and Unit's is that yours make sense. Heavy weapons are supposed to be those that require setup times that preclude being used when moving at full speed. Advancing being an alternative to charging means charging doesn't just give you bonus movement, so they're both different flavors of 'on the double' compared to normal, cautious movement.

A commander not being able to use the radio of a command vehicle- except as a special ability tied to an abstract resource based on force composition at the start of the game- doesn't particularly make sense. It's a game-y restriction that shifts the decision points away from what we might recognize as real-world tactics and more to something akin to the abstract internal logic of M:TG.

Obviously the complaint is not that the game puts restrictions on what you can do. Of course it does. Every game does. If anything, I'd argue 9th doesn't do it enough. The actual complaint is that the restrictions placed on what you can do are not conducive to the verisimilitude of the game, and that's what Unit is looking for in his play experience.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 17:23:05


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Rihgu wrote:
Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

But it's not in a military context, so it's not tactics or tactical choices. It is choices that mirror tactics, at best. Hence why your reply was so frustrating. This isn't a conversation I'd engage in, as you have this context to words known only to you. If you had replied to me and said "well, tactics apply to military context's" I'd have said "okay, my post was less a direct reply to you and more directed towards the people who engaged in the "tactical decisions in 40k" thread, and your passage there just happened to show some choices that people said they'd prefer/said didn't exist" and left it at that. Because your passage really does show some interesting tabletop decisions to be thought about and made. There are pros/cons to each of the choices detailed, and given the vague context of the passage there's no obviously correct/incorrect answer (ie, false choices). It's not the "false choice" situation that the game suffers from with stratagems and command points. Of course the correct choice is to use Veterans of the Long War. It's a pure buff with no upside, I don't need to make a decision there. Of course I move onto the objective and fire through the dense cover, there's no downside since I can only have a -1 to my hit roll and I'm going to be taking it no matter what. But the question of "Do I disembark to be able to give orders" or "Do I attempt to skirt around, or charge with my Chimera?" have weight to them..
Instead it feels like we had a conversation and then you pulled out a "Well, actually, that word doesn't mean what you think it means". Cool, sorry for wasting both of our times with the interim posts.

I mean, you jumped down my throat about a narrative I wrote trying to make the point about game-isms. You couldn't have missed the initial point harder if you tried, and now that you realize how badly you missed it, you can't just be like "Man I AM SO FRUSTRATED!"

Like, the point of my little narrative is that the rules don't match reality. Trying to claim "but look at all the tactical decisions he could have made differently using the in-game rules!" is going to inevitably devolve into a comparison of how close those in-game rules come to reality. I'm surprised you are so frustrated after missing the point so hard. I genuinely thought you were trying to get a rise out of me - that's how hard you missed the point of the original post.

Rihgu wrote:
Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules.

As does 40k:
THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE
In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!



Guess what happens when I invoke TMIR from 40k in a 40k game versus what happens when I invoke "Play the Period" from Chain of Command?

Here's some examples:
"The T-35 actually has a radio - in fact, most of the ways the different T-35s in photographs can be differentiated is by what type of radio aerial they had around the turret. Therefore, the T-35 should be exempt from the 'no radios on early war Russian tanks' rule."
"Yeah, mate, makes sense to me. I can even see the radio aerial on that model, looks great! Love the weathering you did where you bent the corner there."
- Chain of Command PtP

"The officer can give orders out of a Chimera. This happens many times in the fluff, both in codexes and out of codexes, where Imperial Guard mechanized units are depicted. Such an example is the Ciaphas Cain series, which explicitly follows the tale of a Valhallan mechanized unit. I think my officer should be able to give orders out of his Chimera without spending a CP, or even with spending a CP but more than once per turn."
"Nope, sorry, that's not the rules." [beat] "I guess we can do it now - I feel bad saying no - but in the future, don't ask me; I think it's rude that you'd ask to break the rules in your favor."
- 40k TMIP

Furthermore, and most importantly, the 40k rule only applies when the players are not sure how to exactly resolve a situation that arises during play. This is explicitly not related to the rules accurately reflecting the reality of the setting. By contrast, Chain of Command's ruleset explicitly calls out situations where reality doesn't line up with the rules, so err on the side of reality.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 17:24:21


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

But it's not in a military context, so it's not tactics or tactical choices. It is choices that mirror tactics, at best. Hence why your reply was so frustrating. This isn't a conversation I'd engage in, as you have this context to words known only to you. If you had replied to me and said "well, tactics apply to military context's" I'd have said "okay, my post was less a direct reply to you and more directed towards the people who engaged in the "tactical decisions in 40k" thread, and your passage there just happened to show some choices that people said they'd prefer/said didn't exist" and left it at that. Because your passage really does show some interesting tabletop decisions to be thought about and made. There are pros/cons to each of the choices detailed, and given the vague context of the passage there's no obviously correct/incorrect answer (ie, false choices). It's not the "false choice" situation that the game suffers from with stratagems and command points. Of course the correct choice is to use Veterans of the Long War. It's a pure buff with no upside, I don't need to make a decision there. Of course I move onto the objective and fire through the dense cover, there's no downside since I can only have a -1 to my hit roll and I'm going to be taking it no matter what. But the question of "Do I disembark to be able to give orders" or "Do I attempt to skirt around, or charge with my Chimera?" have weight to them..
Instead it feels like we had a conversation and then you pulled out a "Well, actually, that word doesn't mean what you think it means". Cool, sorry for wasting both of our times with the interim posts.

I mean, you jumped down my throat about a narrative I wrote trying to make the point about game-isms. You couldn't have missed the initial point harder if you tried, and now that you realize how badly you missed it, you can't just be like "Man I AM SO FRUSTRATED!"

Emphasis my own. I didn't jump down anybody's throat. I made a post that happened to use your own post as a talking point, that wasn't even a direct response to you. Nor was it in any way addressing any point you were making, let alone refuting it. Nor did I present myself as not missing the point.

edit: for complete clarity, my point in my post that used your post as an example was that taking away stratagems and/or command points does lead to more meaningful tabletop decisions. I was not meaning to refute your point about loss of narrative. I even acknowledge in my response that what I'm talking about isn't narrative. Again, I wasn't addressing or refuting your point, I was making my own on an unrelated topic, and your post was a good example in support of it.

edit again: The frustration arises from the fact that I thought you were engaging with my point and not that you were apparently more interested in showing off you have more knowledge of the meaning of the word tactical than I do. But either you missed my point as hard as you thought I missed yours or we've been yelling at strawmen of our own construction vaguely shaped like each other who happen to be having separate conversations from what the real versions of ourselves are.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 17:34:30


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







ccs wrote:
...Like 40k but what you have just isn't working? Buy something different.
Decide you don't like 40k, but do still like miniature gaming? Switch games & buy models for that....
Either way, $ spent.

Or you can simply take the "wait" (and optionally bitch about it) approach. Whatever you have? Eventually the rules will cycle back around to it being good again. This cycle could take anywhere from about 18 months to a decade+ though.... In the meantime there's still plenty of games to be played.



I'm alternately amused and frustrated by the people who insist 9th is the best, most balanced edition ever in one breath and then turn around and tell me "yeah, but if you want to participate you need to buy different models" when I point out that that isn't my experience, or tell me that there's no point spending a hundred dollars on other minis games because they won't get to play with them while happily blowing a thousand dollars on a new 40k army every 6-8 months to replace the one that just got nerfed into the ground and they'll never play again. The sheer speed with which GW nerfs, squats, or renders irrelevant through power creep models that they still try to sell players using the "buy minis you like, you'll be fine!" mantra is mind-blowing to me, as is the lengths to which players will go to justify it.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Unit1126PLL wrote:Right. Exactly.

"Tactics" is a military term, a WAR term. Not a GAME term (at least not to me).

A "tactical" choice is a decision made in a military context.

To say it is "more (or less) tactical" to stay inside the chimera than it would be to disembark is just nonsense. It may be more or less sensible given the GAME mechanics, but it isn't a "tactics" choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote:

"Well, I kind of thought you had read the ruleset enough to know which options were available before the game."


"I did, which is why I am complaining about said ruleset tactically constraining me for no reason."
The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Racerguy180 wrote:
The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???


I imagine you're going to see that change in their new 'dex.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???


I imagine you're going to see that change in their new 'dex.


Just like we did for all the other vehicles in 9th edit-

Oh wait no, only Guard has radios in their tanks, sorry, carry on.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.



That's not true at all, sure they were a beat stick when they got into combat themselves, but they also gave the entire army special rules-Vulkan he'stan improving all your meltas/flamers and thunder hammers, shrike gave you army wide fleet USR, the khan outflank and so on.

Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





aphyon wrote:


Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.


To re-iterate, I wasn't talking about narrative in any capacity. It is a tabletop decision, not a narrative decision.

And anyways, the Chimera does have a radio, judging by how if you use the stratagem to give orders from inside of it you count as being within 3" of a vox-caster. But that is neither here nor there.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

What the hell is my jump-pack chaplain supposed to do? Sit there and buff gak...umm no. Oh he'll buff gak, but he's gonna smash some heretics/gaunts/boys whatever.

My Terminator capt w thunderhammer, oh right he's not supposed to find the biggest thing and charge it. He's supposed to just sit back and buff shooting and do nothing else.

I could go on for my other armies as well but I think the point is made.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

aphyon wrote:
Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.



That's not true at all, sure they were a beat stick when they got into combat themselves, but they also gave the entire army special rules-Vulkan he'stan improving all your meltas/flamers and thunder hammers, shrike gave you army wide fleet USR, the khan outflank and so on.

Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.
What about generic characters? What did they do?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


That's not true at all.

Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


Hmm, i wonder whether there would be any kind of design decisions put in place into the rules of Warhammer 40,000 to encourage the kind of unrealistic, rule-of-cool gonzo space fantasy that the universe is intended to be based in?

Like, I don't know, just spitballing here, giving units engaging in super-unrealistic hand to hand combat some sort of magical defensive force field that applies the second they get into combat with stuff, or say, giving commanders extremely elevated statistics above the general enlisted men to encourage them to participate in heroic duels?

The only problem I have with what youre kind of getting at here is, you'd like YOUR idea of what the setting SHOULD be to trump what it kind of seems like it always has been.

Sure, realistically, an imperial guard army should be firing artillery from 50 miles away at the enemy, imperial guard commanders should NEVER EVER leave the safety of their command vehicles...probably, tbh, their fething SPACECRAFTS to heroically charge in and die to enemy melee units, and any time an elite melee unit gets into combat with a squadron of guardsmen, they should all instantly explode in a big cloud of red mist when a battlecannon shell slams into them.

when people say 'older editions were just better and more realistic' what they really mean is 'they had the kind of unrealism that I prefer'. In older editions, deadly melee units were completely incapable of charging if they did....basically anything before hand. Leapt out of cover to outflank the enemy? Better stand around like idiots for a turn, firing our handful of pistols, it would be unsporting for us to charge in and chop the enemy up with our swords! Heavily armored elite melee units slamming down from the sky directly on top of the enemy's squishy heads? nonono, sir, that unit unfortunately has been completely obliterated!

But your artillery piece with its high-angled gun being able to fire at enemies 40 yards away from it indirectly? Perfectly fine, no problems here, completely realistic!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
What the hell is my jump-pack chaplain supposed to do? Sit there and buff gak...umm no. Oh he'll buff gak, but he's gonna smash some heretics/gaunts/boys whatever.

My Terminator capt w thunderhammer, oh right he's not supposed to find the biggest thing and charge it. He's supposed to just sit back and buff shooting and do nothing else.

I could go on for my other armies as well but I think the point is made.


.....no, they're supposed to do both. What? Do you actually think that people take Terminator armored TH/SS space marine captains and just...have them stand around offering a measley RR1s to hit aura to shooting units?

And WTF is the complaint about the chaplain, chaplains literally do the EXACT THING THEYVE ALWAYS DONE in previous editions....they used to rr hits in cc for units they were attached to...they now rr hits in cc for units they're near.

You still fight with SM characters, theyre often the single most points-efficient melee units in any given SM list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 19:12:00


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


That's not true at all.

Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


Hmm, i wonder whether there would be any kind of design decisions put in place into the rules of Warhammer 40,000 to encourage the kind of unrealistic, rule-of-cool gonzo space fantasy that the universe is intended to be based in?

Like, I don't know, just spitballing here, giving units engaging in super-unrealistic hand to hand combat some sort of magical defensive force field that applies the second they get into combat with stuff, or say, giving commanders extremely elevated statistics above the general enlisted men to encourage them to participate in heroic duels?

The only problem I have with what youre kind of getting at here is, you'd like YOUR idea of what the setting SHOULD be to trump what it kind of seems like it always has been.


Sure, realistically, an imperial guard army should be firing artillery from 50 miles away at the enemy, imperial guard commanders should NEVER EVER leave the safety of their command vehicles...probably, tbh, their fething SPACECRAFTS to heroically charge in and die to enemy melee units, and any time an elite melee unit gets into combat with a squadron of guardsmen, they should all instantly explode in a big cloud of red mist when a battlecannon shell slams into them.

when people say 'older editions were just better and more realistic' what they really mean is 'they had the kind of unrealism that I prefer'. In older editions, deadly melee units were completely incapable of charging if they did....basically anything before hand. Leapt out of cover to outflank the enemy? Better stand around like idiots for a turn, firing our handful of pistols, it would be unsporting for us to charge in and chop the enemy up with our swords! Heavily armored elite melee units slamming down from the sky directly on top of the enemy's squishy heads? nonono, sir, that unit unfortunately has been completely obliterated!

But your artillery piece with its high-angled gun being able to fire at enemies 40 yards away from it indirectly? Perfectly fine, no problems here, completely realistic!


You know full well when I say "realism" I don't mean "literally our reality" but rather "alignment with the setting's own reality." I'm not complaining that melee is unrealistic in an age with guns, I'm complaining that its incongruous with the lore to have Chimeras unable to push at speed through Orks who can't meaningfully harm them. So that's all the stuff that's struck out safely addressed.

For the rest of it:
1) I never said IG Commanders should never leave their command vehicles. I said they should be able to give orders from within them. Nice straw man though, feel free to clean up all the straw on the floor when you are done.
2) WRT Battlecannon shells into elite units: depends on the unit, obviously. I think it is very "realistic*" (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary) for Terminators, Custodian Guard, etc. to endure battle cannon shells without too much difficulty, given that they have in the lore. Conversely, I think it is also very "realistic*" (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary) for Space Marines to suffer significant casualties from battlecannon (or, in the specific example I am thinking of, Demolisher cannon) shells, because this has also been demonstrated in the lore.
3) When I say earlier editions are more realistic* (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary), I mean more realistic* (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary) within the setting.
To address your specific example, deepstriking/infiltrating/outflanking in prior editions disallowed charging precisely to give the enemy time to react, and the jankiness that ensued is entirely a consequence of the IGOUGO mechanics. It's very similar to Zone of Control in a hex-based wargame, essentially forcing a pause in the action to give your opponent time to react to a situation that, in reality* (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary), he'd have some time to react to. BUT! 40k does this reaction system quite badly indeed, since their "reaction" is a turn with their entire army. There are better designed systems for this, and that's why 40k's never been a GREAT system. Saying older editions are better is not the same as older editions are flawless.

WRT artillery at short range: yeah, I actually had a problem with this too, and was a fan of the Indirect Fire Minimum Ranges (which yes, did exist) in earlier editions. I would be a proponent of making those minimum ranges much larger - and, perhaps, deploying the artillery off the table. But that doesn't sell models so....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 19:36:09


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


That's not true at all.

Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


None of this applies to 40k by design. 40k is deliberately nonsensical. The military doctrines described in the fluff are at best extremely basic stuff like "Kill more enemies than enemies kill you" and "If you have overwhelming force, that can save on casualties." and is at worst blatantly suicidal. The reality 40k is played in is that not running in front of a machine gun is cowardice, using swords to kill armored vehicles is what badasses do, and we don't need smoke because we have the glory of the emperor on our side also I literally care more about our smoke grenade supply than all of your lives.

Stop trying to make 40k a military game. It's a heavy metal album cover with dice.

Chain of Command's catchphrase is stupid and suggest it's a terrible game. It would be even worse in 40k. "Ope, fluff says that this many tyranids in one place means exterminatus, guess we should call the TO over and let him know we tied!"

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







ERJAK wrote:
None of this applies to 40k by design. 40k is deliberately nonsensical. The military doctrines described in the fluff are at best extremely basic stuff like "Kill more enemies than enemies kill you" and "If you have overwhelming force, that can save on casualties." and is at worst blatantly suicidal. The reality 40k is played in is that not running in front of a machine gun is cowardice, using swords to kill armored vehicles is what badasses do, and we don't need smoke because we have the glory of the emperor on our side also I literally care more about our smoke grenade supply than all of your lives.

Huh, I guess all that lore about the Imperial Guard having sensible regiments mixed in with the insane ones can just safely be ignored because Erjak said so. Oh, and sensible Mechanicum Adepts, sensible Necrons, sensible Tau? Phooey to that, Erjak says! Now if only GW would accept Erjak's view of the lore and allow it to overwrite their own, he might even be right!

ERJAK wrote:
Stop trying to make 40k a military game. It's a heavy metal album cover with dice.

And yet it bills itself as a WAR game, and used to be much more WAR than game than it is now. If you're happy with it being a heavy metal album cover with dice, be my guest, but don't be surprised when I say "it isn't a wargame". 'Cause by your own admission, it's not.

ERJAK wrote:
Chain of Command's catchphrase is stupid and suggest it's a terrible game. It would be even worse in 40k. "Ope, fluff says that this many tyranids in one place means exterminatus, guess we should call the TO over and let him know we tied!"

I would normally go at great lengths to illustrate the difference between narrative and competitive play in reply to this, but I guess you don't actually care about narrative play and so such a distinction would be unfathomable to you.

EDIT to add:
Previous editions of 40k literally had rules for missions against endless Tyranid swarms, so it's particularly funny to me that you chose that as an example of something that couldn't POSSIBLY be played on the tabletop.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 19:47:11


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


That's not true at all.

Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


Hmm, i wonder whether there would be any kind of design decisions put in place into the rules of Warhammer 40,000 to encourage the kind of unrealistic, rule-of-cool gonzo space fantasy that the universe is intended to be based in?

Like, I don't know, just spitballing here, giving units engaging in super-unrealistic hand to hand combat some sort of magical defensive force field that applies the second they get into combat with stuff, or say, giving commanders extremely elevated statistics above the general enlisted men to encourage them to participate in heroic duels?

The only problem I have with what youre kind of getting at here is, you'd like YOUR idea of what the setting SHOULD be to trump what it kind of seems like it always has been.


Sure, realistically, an imperial guard army should be firing artillery from 50 miles away at the enemy, imperial guard commanders should NEVER EVER leave the safety of their command vehicles...probably, tbh, their fething SPACECRAFTS to heroically charge in and die to enemy melee units, and any time an elite melee unit gets into combat with a squadron of guardsmen, they should all instantly explode in a big cloud of red mist when a battlecannon shell slams into them.

when people say 'older editions were just better and more realistic' what they really mean is 'they had the kind of unrealism that I prefer'. In older editions, deadly melee units were completely incapable of charging if they did....basically anything before hand. Leapt out of cover to outflank the enemy? Better stand around like idiots for a turn, firing our handful of pistols, it would be unsporting for us to charge in and chop the enemy up with our swords! Heavily armored elite melee units slamming down from the sky directly on top of the enemy's squishy heads? nonono, sir, that unit unfortunately has been completely obliterated!

But your artillery piece with its high-angled gun being able to fire at enemies 40 yards away from it indirectly? Perfectly fine, no problems here, completely realistic!


You know full well when I say "realism" I don't mean "literally our reality" but rather "alignment with the setting's own reality." I'm not complaining that melee is unrealistic in an age with guns, I'm complaining that its incongruous with the lore to have Chimeras unable to push at speed through Orks who can't meaningfully harm them. So that's all the stuff that's struck out safely addressed.



Except you don't really seem to get the settings own reality either. Everything that happens in 40k happens because it is dramatic, grimdark, awesome, or ridiculous. Not because it's efficient use of resources and tactically sound based on the writing of Rommel and Sun Tzu.

Even in fluff battles, different weapons do different things every fight because it doesn't matter exactly what the impact force of shells are or the concussion absorbtion of Ceramite or the heat tolerance of plasma batteries, it's about what's the sickest most raddest most 80- kid-who-never-really-grew-up thing that can happen.

Now, you could certainly argue that the rules often make sense *within the setting* on those grounds. The fact that guns do the same amount of damage every game is ridiculous and doesn't make sense *within the setting* there should be a random table each unit has to roll on to see if they're the mook or the hero so they can know if their gun will insta-kill everything or just make 1 dramatic shoulder wound. Artillery shells shouldn't be allowed to hit named characters and should only hit generic characters if it's either super dramatic or creates a rapid tonal shift (ala pokedot man's death). The last surviving member of a unit should get a bunch of stat buffs to go full army of one, last man standing. Tanks should explode automatically every time they die and kill 2D6+6 models that cost 8 points or less. All of those would be far more meaningful changes towards being accurate *to the setting* than worrying about minimum artillery distances or how a tank commander's PA system works.

(You can find examples of every single one of these in 40k as a setting, don't even tell me you can't.)

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







You're essentially arguing that it is impossible to turn 40k into a game because the background is too inconsistent to have any meaning beyond "COOL THING HAPPENS NOW."

And I would argue that perhaps the setting should be more consistent, if they were trying to make anything more coherent than an RPG. Remember, GW controls the setting and the rules, which means it should be EASIER to design rules to the setting (since you don't have to constrain yourself to pesky things like 'what actually happened'). But if they can't develop a consistent setting, then....

But setting that aside, your argument is essentially: "The lore doesn't and shouldn't matter to the game because it's inconsistent?" I'm asking, because I suspect there are a fair few people who would disagree with that assessment. (There are tons of people on this board who love Crusade to death and who are avowed narrative gamers, moreso even than myself. Paging PenitentJake)

Furthermore, if that is in fact your stance, then why couldn't 40k be more of a WARgame than a warGAME? Even if you've proven to me that 40k can never adhere to the zany and inconsistent melting-pot of whackiness that is current 40k lore, you've not proven to me why a military-style wargame is undesirable compared to a "heavy metal cover with dice" (for thousands of dollars).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 20:13:59


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???


I imagine you're going to see that change in their new 'dex.


Just like we did for all the other vehicles in 9th edit-

Oh wait no, only Guard has radios in their tanks, sorry, carry on.


*shrug*

If DE can get special patrols and Admech can get a bunch of crap in the command phase then IG can get something that increases their distinction.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Scotsman and Erjak, I think you guys are missing the point. Unit's not asking for the game to play like a WW2 wargame, he wants it to feel like 40K The Game and fit the source material that he's invested in. The examples he's given aren't 'I can't properly represent auftragstaktik on my 40K table', they're basic in-universe stuff that the current rules don't model very well or intuitively.

A super-realistic historical military game wouldn't have rules for using tanks to run over infantry. But running over Orks with your Chimera at full speed while the officer shouts orders from the hatch (while waving his chainsword) seems perfectly fitting with 40K. So pointing out that 40K is inherently unrealistic heavy metal album cover fantasy is not a very compelling justification for why tank shock doesn't exist.

The complaint isn't that 9th Ed doesn't feel like a realistic military simulation. It's that it doesn't feel like a good representation of the 40K universe, and is too abstract and 'gamey' for him to get invested in the narrative.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Right!!

And if the consequences of following the narrative are "do whatever you want, nothing matters!" then that is also unsatisfactory. I can write fanfic on my own time without buying anything. The game helps tell the story by providing a window into the setting through which our armies can be participants.

Right now, though, when I put down the novel/codex lore section and peer into that window, I wonder if I am even looking at the same thing I was just reading about.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 AnomanderRake wrote:
ccs wrote:
...Like 40k but what you have just isn't working? Buy something different.
Decide you don't like 40k, but do still like miniature gaming? Switch games & buy models for that....
Either way, $ spent.

Or you can simply take the "wait" (and optionally bitch about it) approach. Whatever you have? Eventually the rules will cycle back around to it being good again. This cycle could take anywhere from about 18 months to a decade+ though.... In the meantime there's still plenty of games to be played.



I'm alternately amused and frustrated by the people who insist 9th is the best, most balanced edition ever in one breath and then turn around and tell me "yeah, but if you want to participate you need to buy different models" when I point out that that isn't my experience, or tell me that there's no point spending a hundred dollars on other minis games because they won't get to play with them while happily blowing a thousand dollars on a new 40k army every 6-8 months to replace the one that just got nerfed into the ground and they'll never play again. The sheer speed with which GW nerfs, squats, or renders irrelevant through power creep models that they still try to sell players using the "buy minis you like, you'll be fine!" mantra is mind-blowing to me, as is the lengths to which players will go to justify it.


Well that guys not me.
1) I do not think 9e is the best, most balanced, or even the most fun, edition of the game. And 40k, regardless of the edition, has never been my favorite game. Just one I've generally enjoyed. I do think certain parts of 8th/9th are better than before. Meanwhile other parts of the current game have been simplified & abstracted to the point where a below average pre-schooler seems to be the target audience (and there's people on these boards that will defend & praise those abstractions!).
At the moment? Despite the parts I dislike? Current 40k is still enough on the + side for me & many of those I play with. Some of the issues are solved by simple house rules - like the idiotic unit coherency rule for larger squads. Or just granting CSM tha 2nd wound. Others are just stuff we don't HAVE to do - shooting each other with our coms antenas, firing left hand sponsons our the right hand side of the tank.... Other stuff? Like the use of Legends units, the VP point bonus for painted armies? GWs opinions on what sizes of boards we should be using? Not even a factor. It's like GW never spoke. Your model has current rules? Use it. Every thing looks painted to us....

2) My point is that whatever game(s) you choose to play you have to get models. That often means spending $.
Is that more/different models for 40k? Is that models for some other game? Are you just going to sit out for a while? Can you find players willing to play a previous edition you like better? Hell, maybe you're like me & are just plain stubborn and will continue to play your not-good stuff anyways (my DA scouts will never be retired).

3) Buying more GW &/or playing other non-GW games. I do both.
And I promote interest in other games at the local shops (at the base lv it's in my own best interest as I need opponents. ) GWs stuff is nowhere near the only games I play. My preference is some edition of WHFB (though Sigmar will suffice) &/or anything Historical (particularly WWII). But the local winds are blowing more towards 40k atm, so it's good I can also enjoy that game.

4) Making "buy minis you like, you'll be fine!" work, whatever the game, takes a particular mindset. You either have it or you don't.
Alot of people require some metric of stats & rules. Without that, no matter how cool the model.... :(
Some of us though.... We start at "Cool model!" And then as long as the game itself is acceptable enough we'll figure out how to use that cool model effectively no matter it's specific rules. Thing might not ever work for the rest of you though.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I'll pause for a moment and show my gratitude for people putting forth their pain points. I think it's necessary to have these discussions ( though some approaches leave much to be desired, personally ), because GW tends to listen a bit more these days and these conversations filter up to the web personalities who have more of a voice, too.

I want nothing more than for 40K to continue to develop. So, thanks.

If I could ask anything of GW it would be for a more digital and open ruleset with less supplements.

If I could think of something that might help people with complexity or overpowered units it would be less starting CP and/or limiting strats to once per unit per phase or turn.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 23:09:00


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???
It is well known that the materials used to create Eldar vehicles completely cut their psykers off from the Warp. As a result, Farseers are powerless to look into the future or help their fellow troops whilst inside the hull of a Falcon or Wave Serpent.

The Ordo Xenos has spent millennia trying to secure some intact examples of the elements that go into Eldar tank hulls in an effort to create special anti-psyker cages, but each time they came close, they were riding inside a transport and couldn't radio their compatriots for support, allowing the Eldar to pick them off.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 23:59:22


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: