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.

How many dice are thrown on average for those games?

I throw arround 20 on average for 40k.

To my knowledge a RPG and a card game dont use large ammounts of dice.

Didnt say I couldnt find them, just said I couldnt find them in bulk. I stand corrected on that point. To be fair though your link says they are the only ones they know of who do.

And most importantally, switching to D10 dice by themselves, even changing the to hit charts and to wound charts wouldnt in and of itself make the game more tactical...

In a typical Exalted game? Up to 40 at a time. In the World of Darkness games, rarely more than 10.

There's a company in Toronto that sells dice by the pound. A friend of mine bought 70 d10's there for about $30. Besides, if GW required them, they'd be easier to find. Supply and demand.

Yes, GW does not have the "Roll a truly ridiculous amount of dice" market cornered, there ARE a few other games out there with the same mentality.

 

Alright, I have never seen a game that rolls lots of dice that werent D6 dice. I guess they do exist.

Back to the topic at hand, less bashing me for my lack of knowledge about other games and their dice.

dornsfist had more things he wanted to say on the subject of outnumbering and relative success in CC, but I guess he misclicked or something, because it somehow ended up in my inbox instead of on this thread.



"As long as I'm still standing, I'm winning, it's that simple"--great, then I suppose we can do away with morale checks all together, since I'm sure every future warrior is going to be at least as hardarsed as you, right, and so would only count as losing a combat when they're dead?

The point is that realistically, in a situation where 5 elite guys kill 4 out of 30 of a mob of cannon fodder, but lose 3 guys in return, the squad of super elite troops is going to feel that they are losing, and rightfully so. They're outnumbered and have taken huge losses proportionate to what they have, but the current ruleset is blind to all that. (You may argue that well, they're elite, they shouldn't run, but that is precisely what we have a leadership value for--to represent the likelihood that a model will, in dire circumstances, run.)



I don't see how this is hijacking the thread. It isn't even mildly OT.

As for working out my frustrations, I'm not the one who's been insulting and condescending from the start, nor am I the one who PMed the guy I was arguing with to insult him further. Physician, heal thyself.

I dont think he meant to post that. Sounds like a personal attack to me.

No tactics in 40k?
Defition of Tactics provided by Dictionary.com

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
tac?tics ?tæk t?ks - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tak-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun
1. (usually used with a singular verb ) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2. (used with a plural verb ) the maneuvers themselves.

3. (used with a singular verb ) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.
------------------
1) the Game is all the maneuvering and shooting that happens in 6 turns
2) the same
3) That?s all that?s discussed here at Dakka is how to gain an advantage and succeed in our games (Yes, this is a gross generalization)

Let's see. Playing I.G. for a while has helped me appreciate a few of the tactics 40k has to offer.

1) A squad alone is a dead squad (with a few exceptions). If your squad or 20 marines is put in 1 quarter of the board and the rest of your army is on the other the opponent can destroy it with less risk. It's kind of like the concept in chess where every piece is covered or a worth while sacrifice.

2) The right tool for the job. You have to use the right gun or unit to do the job needed. Don't ever think that you're Infantry platoon will reach the opponents deployment zone, your Battle tank will take out a Land Raider, or that you're 6 man las plas will be able to stop an equivalent amount of hormagaunts before the lines.

3) This hold more so with the guard than MEQs, but Kill to the man. I learned this the hard way. As guard, spreading fire around doesn't work. (More so than with marines) you have to target a squad and remove it entirely from the table before moving on to the next.

4) Deployment and movement are important. The difference between the static gun line and setting up to out maneuver you?re enemy require completely different styles of play. If there were no tactics move meant wouldn?t matter. You run your devastator squad in to the building because it?s safer. Who wants a battle tank shooting at there unprotected Las Cannon squad?

These are all tactical decisions.
I think that these tactics are true to life and the game. Also, I think that if you search this forum for the word tactics you'll get more than enough data to show you the variations to what you can do in a 4 by 6 game board. There?s my thoughts.

Wow, tegeus, I just PM'ed you an apology if I came across as angry, which was unintentional.  Now I read your pathetic tactic here and are now convinced you have issues.  If you are going to post the pm's of people without discussing it with them, show everyone your PM'ed responses as well.  PM's are for your eyes only.  I didn't want to hijack the thread and make it a personal attack.  But you sure did.  I have never seen a poster publically post a PM in the past to continue some moronic discussion/debate such as the one you want to have here.  But I have been away for a while. 

My point was that being outnumbered does not mean you are losing.  You focused on a hypothetical real life situation.  If you want to discuss it further, either PM me or meet me at the Baltimore GT in November.  I'll be the guy playing Crimson Fists and wearing a body cast recovering from the beating that 15 gretchin put on me.  WOW!

"As long as I'm still standing, I'm winning, it's that simple"--great, then I suppose we can do away with morale checks all together, since I'm sure every future warrior is going to be at least as hardarsed as you, right, and so would only count as losing a combat when they're dead?

This is related to your PM that you failed to post, clarifying that if it were just me and one of my "mates" left standing against 15 school children, you are damn right I'm not running because I'm not going to punk my wingman and leave him to fight.  But that is besides the point.

And I disagree with you about every future warrior is going to be as hardarsed as me.  They will be exponentially MORE hardarsed than me.  Today's warriors are 10 times as hardarsed than I am.  And a space marine (I can't believe I am even expending energy typing this) is infinitely more hardarsed than me.

Sorry everyone, but I took the bait.  Now I have to go back to the real world and train for the impending attack of the killer school children.

BTW tegeus this was the original topic:

I thought I'd start a topic to try and get a discussion going.

From what i've read on forums and have seen of games in stores over the years, the tactics side of the game has actually gone beyond this and has now entered the realm of everyone trying to simply outdo each other for armies that win every game, by even going so far as to working out statistics for certain weapons probability of killing something. 

I personally think this has led to the game becoming far less fun than it used to be, with alot of people now only using the army lists that 'do well'. This in my opinion is making the game very narrow in its variety with very few folk seeming to use models or units simply because they like them but using units and configurations of equipment to make their army win all the time.

Any thoughts are welcome.

I fail to see how I would handle a real life fight with school children related.  But if you STILL feel this is an issue, please, by all means, PM me.  As in PERSONAL MESSAGE, not intended to waste public forum space.    Cheers!

Simply put, don't put anything in writing that you're not willing to share with the entire world.

As to the (sub-)topic of morale, the 40k morale system is stupid. It neglects issues like outnumbering, position, the liklihood of reinforcements, and other modifiers that would determine whether or not a closely-engaged force would stand its ground or fall back. It neglects the possibility that BOTH sides might fall back. It ignores the chances of intentionally falling back (outside of a few sporadic "hit and run" units). Everything simply becomes "I killed more men than you - roll." And that is lame.

I don't care that it was publically posted, janthkin, just the fact that it was used to sidetrack the post in an arguementative fashion.  Are you saying what tegeus did was acceptable?  I hope not, but I could be wrong.  Either way, I am done with it.  It is rather childish and has absolutely nothing to do with the game.  PM me, janthkin, if you want it discussed further.  Thanks.

 

BTW~ there are many other real life situations are different from a game.  Dropping troopers with plasma guns behind enemy lines only to be shot to shreds by the enemy for instance.  However, if you look in the history books, our boys did this in D-day.  Do you have a solution or are you just pointing out the obvious flaws?  I would be interested to hear the part about what sort of modifier you would give to elite troops versus less than sub par grunts.

dornsfist, I'll be damned if I return to the outnumbering/relative success argument again, but as for the "you being a dick to me" issue, I will say this: nothing in your PMs to me were really anything different from what you've been directing at me since we started this discussion. I may not have been perfectly polite to you at the start of this thread, but I did refrain from personal attacks. You responded almost immediately with condescension and snide remarks. You claim that you PMed me instead of posting it publically because you didn't want to clog the thread, but I call BS: the truth, I think, is that you knew that anyone else reading it would see it as you flaming me gratuitously, which is exactly what it was. FFS, I even responded to your first PM with



What was your response? To PM me again to flame me some more. Nice one there, Mr I'm-A-Victim.

Good day.

I can't even decipher the point of this argument.

There are statistics that tell us what will win what fight. I'm not even going to bother running the numbers, but I'd actually bet that 15 grots would kill 1 Marine very, very reliably.

What does this even have to do with? Morale? Are we forgetting that 40K is a game where a whole squad of models will refuse to run from combat with a Dreadnaught that they have no possibility to hurt?

Hey, isn't that a tactic? Get your Dreads into combat with models that can't hurt them (and that are worth the points to kill)?

Phyrxis, the issue arose from cypher's post:
Da Boss responded to this by suggesting more realistic combat resolution (i.e. killing more numerically != auto-win). Dornsfist responded by ridiculing the example Da Boss chose (Marines fighting grots), an argument which I found absurd. The rest is history.

Okay, so traitor gaurd Versus Marines, or Termies versus Marines, the thing this stands- number of kills is not the only thing that leads to a break in morale.
how would I represent it? Well, I'd add a simple +1 combat resolution for outnumbering, I'd give a +1 for high ground, and I'd give +1 for being in a defensible position. It's not hard. You can't easily add a rank bonus system or any analogue to 40K, so we'll leave that out, ditto flanking.
Suppressive fire? A blast marker system like epic would work quite well, with any unit which has a blast marker unable to put them on other units.

These are my suggestions for a more tactical 40K. Obviously, the game currently is tactical, just not very tactical. I find it lacking, personally, not very challenging or thought provoking, and pretty predicatible. But that's why i don't play much anymore. I'd happily accept complexity for tactical depth, but I realise that others wouldn't, that's cool. but it's also why I'm getting out of 40K.

And as Tegeus-Cromis said, Leadership is what should determine whether or not they run away, we are wondering what counts as a "win" though. And the marines are only withdrawing anyway, it's not like they're gonna be wiped out.

Dude, let it go.  How old are you anyway?  I never directed anything at you.  My initial response was to DaBoss.  Unless your are posting under two names, how was that directed to you exactly.  My PM responses to you contained emoticons that clearly represented sarcastic humor.  Your response that you couldn't see the point that being outnumbered doesn't mean you are losing as well as the desire to make it a public arguement is acting like a "dick".  Just the simple fact that you still want to pursue this is proof that you are pathetically trolling for some justification.  I admit that I am taking the bait, but don't call the kettle black.  You are the one that is continueing this absurd dialogue, the one that can't let it go, the one that got bent out of shape.  If you feel that I was "being a dick to you", maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror and see what it was that triggered it.  You ADMIT that you were not polite, so what were you expecting, a box of chocolates, flowers and a reach around?  Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.  Also, don't call me a liar a million miles away on the internet.  At least have the common courtesy to do that to my face.

The fact is that I PM'ed you, you created the hijacked thread and still wish to continue instead of apologizing for your initial assanine remarks publically and privately.  I did so before I read your trolling responses.  You admit that you were not polite and have not made any such effort, Richard.

What I'd like to know is how many tegeus-Cromises... Or possibly tegeus-Cromii... Anyway, how many of those would have to be assaulting a dornsfist before the dornsfist would run away?

That made my night, phryxis.  Now remember, I am more hardarsed than a space marine and tegeus is a 12 year old girl.  So I would say if tegeus showed up at the Baltimore GT, he would be drinking his food for 6 months through a straw.  But I would be in a body cast, because me and my "mates" are still recovering from the gretchin beating.    I wouldn't want to disrespect my primarch, ya know!

Tegeus, this is called sarcastic humor, you silly little freak. 

PM me, and we can discuss it further.  Or is it still a public issue?  Get real!

You could take a shot at flanking, relative to deployment zone edges. Alternatively, I'd love to see a mechanic based on how far away your nearest reinforcements are: e.g., if I've got buddies w/in 12", and you don't, I get another +1.

dornsfist, much as I might enjoy the manly charms of your company, I'm afraid it isn't really worth my time or airfare to fly halfway round the world to get my lights punched out (because that's how real men settle things, right?). I guess I'll just have to go back to Polly Pocket, and leave 40k to ubermenschen like you. *sadface*

-

Back on topic, I do think an outnumbering/relative success system could be easily added. After all, outnumbering is already factored in when it comes to seeing if a losing side runs, so it would be intuitive for it to have an effect on determining who wins in the first place. You could just calculate combat resolution by comparing the percentage of one side killed with the percentage of the other side killed (rounding down). In the example of Marines vs. gretchin, the Marines would have lost 60% (3 out of 5), while the grots would have lost 26% (4 out of 15, rounding down), so the gretchin would win the combat. Objections that Marines dornsfists would never run from mere gretchin tegeus-Cromii are ultimately specious: the fact that they are hardarsed enough not to run from a losing fight does not mean that they aren't losing the fight. This sort of courage/persistence is what the Leadership value is supposed to represent, and shouldn't be hardcoded into the system.

I'm willing to bet that you don't have to fly across the world to get your lights punched out, tegeus.  I'm positive all you would have to do is go to your local watering hole to get that accomplished pretty easily.  Keep trolling, though, it suites you.  If you are under the age of 21, I publically apologize.  If not, go fook yourself!  Cheers.

A "how close are my buddies" rule would be great actually, yeah!
I'd also like to see fearless being relegated to a few specific units, and walkers being a mite easier to take out in close combat with infantry (the current indestructable dreadnaughts are a wee bit boring).

I think suppressive fire could really add a lot to the game, it'd make supporting units really important and give more of a feel of a battle line. Uber units wouldn't win all because they could be held back, and would need support.

Dornfist, if I had used Imperial Gaurdsmen and Gretchin would you have had less of a problem? I take it you're an Imperial Fists player from the Username.

OMG, don't even bother dude, the Polly Wheels Blue Zoom is SO broken. So broken. Blue AND Zoom on the same model? Plus wheels? F THAT.

Despite the hissy fit going on in half this thread, there are some good points here.

At the beggining of this thread I posted that 40K is all about the list; but i just played a game against one of my regular opponants in our highly competetive league here in Southern California, and it reminded me of this thread and how i was only partially correct, and a lot wrong.

40K can be won or lost before the game is played. a power list vs. a fluff list, or a list that is the paper to another list's rock, will often win with almost no tactics at all, just aim it in the right direction and let it do its thing. Basically if you do not make any bonehead moves, you will win. It still takes brain power to make a good list (or thability to read these forums) but once its on table, it is pretty easy to win with it.

But this game I played was against a very good general with a tough marine list vs. my gaurd.

We both had mean lists with no points wasted. He and i play each other a lot and the games are always very tough. He knocked me out of the playoffs last season, and handed me my only losses.

At any rate, the game was a nailbiter, the kind where every movement is vital, every shot important and the game came down to the last shot of the game. He made one bad desicion with his final shot and the dice rolled in my favor, giving me a win by the skin of my teeth.

That game reminded me of just how much 40K does revolve around tactics. There were a million little descions made mid game that could have had a huge influence on the outcome had we done things differently. Even the positioning of each individual model was important and had big implications on the game.

The key though, is that you have to have two players with comprable lists and skill level. When things are lopsided, the game is a joke. You feel like a monkey could have won.

However, in a tough match up the game is highly engaging, and for me, super fun. How many times have you had a game like that where you look back and realize if you would have done one thing differently, you might have pulled it off, or vice versa.

Tactics in a game like this are not what you see in reality, they invlove figuring out clever ways to use the rules and lists to create an advantage for your army. I do not think that a game like this can ever really come close to real world battlefield tactics, but it does create a lot of room for a skilled player to create tactical advantages through the rules provided.

To slow. compare 2 out of 9 to 8 out of 31. you have 5 sec.

Anything that needs that much math would interrupt the flow of the game.

Perhaps something based on points lost. Easier and faster to calculate. 3 marines = 45 points. 5 grots = ??? points.

I do think that fearless is handed arround a little to liberly. So is rending. But the dreads should be very dificult to kill in combat. They should also do more damage too. 3-4 attacks worth of damage instead of 2. Kind of a letdown actually. But that is more of a fluf vs game issue.


The +1 for buddies could be a cool idea.

The only think I would really like to see would be moral checks being more common/having more effect. If checks from shooting had different modifiers on them such as -1 for 25% casualties, -2 for 50% and so on it would be good, easy to do, and not change balance much. This would also make pinning weapons much more effective rather than a vague bonus.

O, and grenades should be improved.  Perhaps you coudl forfit your shooting to throw frag grenades.  They are pinning weapons( 3-6 in range)  with a -1 modifier to your leadership for every gredande after the first.  Not to powerful as you lose shooting and if you assult them the grenades were useless but they are usefull.

I like the idea of surpressing fire. Perhaps allow a unit to forgo firing for effect so to speak, in favor of picking a spot and either putting a blast/ord marker over the area, or perhaps any unit within X inches, where X is the number of shots fired (ie. how many dice you would roll for effect.)
Alternately, you could roll to Hit, and every hit would require a pinning test, with 6's perhaps being actual hits rolled as normal (in addition to pinning.)
Thusly, units with high morale would still be rock solid and reliable, but still have a chance of keeping their heads down, while more average soldiers would do the more likely duck and cover. (More average soldiers would have greater numbers though, and so have more opportunity to pile in supressive fire.)

I am going to have to look into Epic. The more I hear, the better it sounds. And it kind of gets me back to my 15mm and Micro Armor roots.

Dornfist, if I had used Imperial Gaurdsmen and Gretchin would you have had less of a problem?

DaBoss, this was my original point that tegeus was unable to wrap his brain around.  Yes, I would have less of a problem with that example.  Marines are representing super-human elite warriors with superior bodyarmor, weapons, training, genetics, etc.  I understand this is to be represented with leadership, but the fact is they killed more than they lost and have a better than average chance of winning that fight then other troops (i.e. guard).  I recognized that the system could be better, just that particular example was poor to further your arguement.  Janthkin and others made suggestions, but they are limited in scope and would drag out the game.  It must be simple to be workable, but must also be fair to troops point costs. 

For example, the statement that your small hard core elite troops just need to be aimed at the opponent and you win in hth stance is no different than taking massed cheap-o sub-par grunts and you will benefit from outnumbering modifiers to always win combats.  That is bullshite.  Outnumbering does not mean you are losing, period.  That was the simple point that dill weed troll-boy couldn't swallow and had to become your champion to defend your honor.  Were you even offended by what I wrote?  Probably not, but fookface had a major issue with it.

Maybe a start would be something simple like some wargear that can be purchased that allow you to add +1 to the combat resolution to determine who wins the original combat (for every 5 models you have more than the opponent, +1 to the combat resolution).  But that would still swing the advantage to units like conscrps and gretchin unfairly.  They already have the point values, numbers, and ability to tie up small elite units forever.  I don't think they should also get the ability to force them to run, be wiped out, or whatever even though they lost combat.  It is a TACTIC already to use the horde to tie up the assault squad.  You don't expect the 15 gretchin to defeat the 5 marines, just prevent them from hitting your more valuable units for a few rounds and winning the victory point battle by having your 100 point gretchin squad nuetralize the 200+ point marine unit so the marines can't get their points back.  That's tactics in a game, not real life where if you lose, you are dead, POW, tortured, etc.

Also, for those who are saying there are no tactics in 40K and a monkey can win with a power-list, while may be true to some extent, but if I allow my assault marines to be tied up by the gretchin, then I am using poor tactics or my opponent is using brilliant tactics in game.  If I have the power list and my opponent doesn't, but I use poor tactics like assaulting the strong hth units instead of shooting them, I am decreasing my advantages and using poor tactics.  Not ot mention coordinating combined arms fire and knowing to shoot template weapons before small arms fire to maximize template hits.  Just some examples.

Hmm.
Well, I disagree with you still- I think the relative success argument holds weight even for space marines.
And I wasn't offended.
I don't think a simple +1 for outnumbering is going to overbalance things too much, as it stands I think things are too far the other way. I do agree that if you changed the rules like this, you'd have to change points values to accomadate- it'd be unfair under the current ruleset.

Like I said, there are obviously tactics to 40K, but I think that other games add more tactical depth than it.

I agree about the +1 to combat resolution if you outnumber your opponent under the current rules/points values.  It would keep the squad locked if they only lost 1 more than the opponent and would represent the tie-breaker if it was even kills.  But I would put a minumum number of models you have to outnumber your opponent by.  Let's say 5.  Adjust the marines ATSKNF to make that double and you got my vote. 

BTW~Way to go teabag, you hijacked the thread for nothing except some private/public issue you created out of loneliness in the bush.  Nice job, trollboy!

I think that a leadership modifying suppressing fire mechanic would be possible and similar to what they had in Epic with the blast markers.  Lets say that you add a blast marker to the unit for every enemy unit whose shooting inflicts casualties on the squad.  Lets say for example that there is a ten man Imperial Guard squad in cover.  Two space marine combat squads hit them with bolter fire and each one kills a single guardsmen.  There would then be two blast markers on the squad.  If the imperial guard squad then wanted to move out of cover they would have to take a leadership test at -2 in order to move. Pinning weapons could also benefit from the leadership modifying properties of the blast markers.

This way volume of fire would actually be capable of deterring movement moreso than the laughable pinning rules.  Leadership modification would actually make the generals think more about how they concentrated their fire and how they would plan an attack.  Covering fire would actually provide cover.  Fearless troops would stand out more and combined arms teams would be more useful.

Also, They should have a disengage from assault rule similar to the one in the Starship Troopers game.  That way there would be less of the beardy half charges to protect assaulters from fire.  Instead of fighting back, your squad could take the hits and then flee and possibly be run down by the chargers who would then get to make a 6" consolidation move. 

These changes combined with a few modifications to the rules for monstrous creatures and skimmers could really enhance the tactical side of the game.