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.

Skinnattittar wrote:
Well, as I stated before, there are plenty of realistic reasons.

I don't find them realistic.

You are also one of the ones who dang near wet themselves about just near everything that changed in the new edition. And if you don't play, you can't really have much input as you're not out on the field playing anymore, now are you?

There are things I like and things I don't about the new edition...The dislike goes to the top, and the local group makes me not have the will to play any more...*shrugs*

But it was nice of you to put in an ad hominum attack in there.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
And fluffwise, what the feth is an "objective" and why do you automatically succeed at everything if you have a guy near it at a specific time? They don't have to wipe out their enemy once they have their "objective"? They don't have to have some ability to transport it to a safe location? They can't do anything with their objective until the clock strikes twelve, and then it suddenly becomes more important than being outnumbered 10 to 1? I mean, they're already pretty abstract.

What if you need to save a great warrior who fell in battle? Or Chaos made a doomsday weapon and you need to disarm it? There are so many possiblities.

skyth wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:
Well, as I stated before, there are plenty of realistic reasons.

I don't find them realistic.

Well then how? The points I suggested are as realistic, reasonable, and factual as one can be with a universe we know little about. You can't apply "plucked from air" logic for your argument with the reason being, "it's the far future, you can't know how things will work," for the exact reason stated. That was a preemptive strike on common cyclical logic, by the way, not necessarily against you, Skyth. If you don't find them realistic, please explain why. It is a fair and reasonable request that I kindly ask be treated with the respect it deserves.

skyth wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote: You are also one of the ones who dang near wet themselves about just near everything that changed in the new edition. And if you don't play, you can't really have much input as you're not out on the field playing anymore, now are you?

There are things I like and things I don't about the new edition...The dislike goes to the top, and the local group makes me not have the will to play any more...*shrugs*
But it was nice of you to put in an ad hominum attack in there.

I'm not sure you know what "ad hominum" means, because it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. You're close, I'll give you that, I did point out something about you in a less flattering light, though no more fair than it is. Just not in green. Ad hominum requires that is (a) be an attack [which it can be considered, I suppose], (b) irrelevant, which it was relevant, and (c) a fallacy, which it wasn't.

You deplored the entire new edition as I remember in the past and willed from nigh the release of the rulebook to neither enjoy the new game rules nor play them. Such negativity makes it difficult for an even perfect or good game to be enjoyed and understood, much less one with the flaws, dings, dents, and mechanical issues as the reality does. Next, as you have said, you no longer play the game, so how can you actually know how well it works? So far there has been majority support with few and weak arguments from the dissenters. Your only argument, Skythe, has been "it's not realistic" with not factual reasons why it isn't. And again, if we want to take the view of the far future, we can't draw any logic comparable to the modern day for any reason for anything. Using modern day analogies, however, we can draw a few.

Example : Let's say a platoon of Rangers captures a fortified building in a city block. Will they stay there for the duration of the war holding that building? If they had to, yeah, probably, but holding such an objective does not require their rare and more specialized abilities. Would it not be wiser to recommit them elsewhere and have your basic infantry platoon come in and occupy it? Well, that is a simple enough plan, so would you not want to plan ahead on a time table for them to be somewhere else later, after a time you estimate for them to perform such a task?

Or alternatively, how about a fighting vehicle? They are used for blitz attacks gambling on an absence of heavier anti-armor. They move it, strike hard, then get out before something big enough to punch them out gets there (be it field artillery, ranged heavy artillery, specialized anti-armor teams finding their location, etc...). So they only want to be tread on the objective for as short a period as possible, the longer they are there the more likely something big and mean will find them. Infantry are a lot more gumby, but softer admittedly. So have them come on in and hold the fort, call in the fighting vehicles if they need them. They're fast, they'll get there sooner or later.

Ah! How about teleporter infantry, as mentioned earlier. Well these guys tend to have the specialist training for such things, or at very least are the ones being dedicated to that task. So you don't want to tie them down on a point if you don't have to. That point is more about how the command and control system works in a military organization. Units below to people who have made commitments to blah blah blah. For that one you'll just have to trust me, but we don't have to lynch-pin it for this argument, I've made other more solid points.

So lets see, what else. Well, you don't want to keep your leadership on the front line for too long. Eventually someone will notice Warlords and Colonels hanging around the highly visible front line, or deep in enemy territory, and either call in artillery to smash your entire command section to tiny little charred pieces, or an inglorious bastard will decide its worth the risk to try and snipe them out. Heck, even launch a concentrated effort to seize them and take them captive! That's almost even worse than the other alternatives! So get them off the front as soon as possible.

So we have Elites, Fast Attack, and HQ. Heavy Support? Well, as big and imposing a monster as the Leman Russ or Land Raiders are, they're not invincible. They're even bigger targets than fighting vehicles and are well worth the extra effort to blow away with you field artillery and big guns. The morale impact alone is worth it. Not to mention that they're actually pretty blind in a passive role, easy to spot and easier to avoid since they're less gumby than infantry. Devastators are similar in that regard, but I could see them being purposed to hold a hard point, as they are gumby infantry. So not every situation is perfect, obviously. But the fix there is a 0-2 restriction for them in the troops section (like how HWS are troops for IG, which was brilliant) and a 0-1 or 0-2 restriction on options like Land Raiders from the Heavy Support section (so you can't take all your Dev. in troops so you can have more LR).

You attacked me instead of my argument. That is an ad hominum...That I don't like the rule and don't play with it has absolutely nothing to do whether my argument is correct or not, not to mention your attack about the capacity of my bladder and the implication that I don't like change and I have knee-jerk reactions. All attacking me instead of my argument.

And guess what, the examples I listed were the same EXACT guys...The teleporting Grey Knights are the same guys as the non-teleporting ones...They are just arriving in the next wave. The elite Deathingwing/Ravenwing are the same exact guys as the troop ones.

And guess what, if you have army rangers occupying a building, you still control the building.

Well, yes and no on your first point. I didn't attack you, I stereotyped you in with a certain type of crowd that doesn't like new and strange things, changes to what they seemed to remember as "better" than what things are now. I did it a bit more colorfully, but you had been quite colorful yourself about it. I did that to point out that there isn't much to do with these types of "players" as far as satisfying them goes. Unless they get their way (which means ubering their armies to always win, because they came up with what they consider to be the perfect lists and have their reasons why...), nothing is good and all is bad. So no, it was relevant, just not in a way some might consider flattering.

As for the rest. Grey Knights are outdated, obviously some things in their codex won't match current fluff. And I did address that, just not perfectly because it would take a considerable amount of time for me to explain the reasons why. And the point I made still stands. Those Terminators, while stats and model-wise are the same, fluff wise are different. Those that deep-strike are the ones that deep-strike, as opposed to the other Terminators which are dedicated to ground work with the foot slodgers. So while some will stay on the ground, in the fluff, the others will return to their teleporters for their next mission, rather than hanging around for the next few days holding an objective.

Same thing with Rangers. Yes, at the end of the battle they may hold the objective, but one of their motos is "Rangers to the Front!" They don't hang around long. They don't like sitting on their duffs waiting for the enemy to attack them, they want to attack the enemy! So, they get pulled back from the line and prepared for another mission somewhere else. Why waste your good troops sitting on a front line hiding from mortars and running from artillery, waiting to get picked off by snipers or the eventual enemy attack?

Same idea applies to most elite forces. They don't hold the line, they advance it. And you can't advance the front line by sitting on an objective.

Stereotyping someone is still attacking them.

And that totally ignores the point that they control the objective...If the objective is important enough that it determines who wins the battle it would be a good use of an elite unit to have it. Troops can be moved up to hold it after the battle.

I would say that is represented by the fact that they are contesting the objective, denying the enemy from controlling it.

Say you are fighting a battle. In the beginning you expect not to have all the advantages, that's why you're fighting it rather than watching the enemy run away. But say after a while of fighting it, you're not taking our or controlling those objectives you had expected to at some point. Well, you may consider cutting your losses and retreating.

If your troops haven't been able to move up by some point, they may never make it. Just because the battle is over doesn't mean the enemy and anyone not sitting near an objective leaves. In fact, it may simply be the beginning of an even larger conflict, or just one part of a bigger battle! That means those Elites, HQ, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support choices have to move on immediately, not today, not tomorrow, NOW to get somewhere else to continue to forward the lines.

But the Troops might stay and hold the position, provide ranged fire support and act as reserves, protecting the rear, or flank, or what have you while other Troops move up to reinforce the Elites, Fast Attack, HQ, and Heavy Support. But if you can't put those boots on the objectives, well then your Elites, Fast Attack, HQ, and Heavy Support have to sit and hold them while they wait for Troops to come up and take over. Well you just lost the next battle because you couldn't keep your forces up where they needed to be! If they leave those objectives empty, why the enemy can just sweep back in with a counter-attack and you have to fight that same battle again!

So would you say there is an immediate reason for those non-Troop choices to be un-able to control an objective.

I actually like that idea a lot. I always thought about it but never put it quite so well.

And you still control the objective and thus won the battle. We are not talking about if you win the next battle or even the war.

With your example, if your elite troops die in the battle, they won't be available for the next battle either, so you should lose because you will lose the next battle.

True, my logic depends on the fact that there is a difference between Troops, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, etc... While yours says they are all the same and act the same as each other. So while yes, you can't move forward as well without fresh non-Troops, but at least you can hold where you are, because your Troops made it.

But with your scenarios we have to assume that the non-Troops selections are going to be willing to stick around. Which they usually aren't in all actuality. We're also assuming that there will be an abundance of these units to do these things. There's a reason Rangers only come in Battalions and not Divisions. There aren't as many of them.

So let's take your scenario and try to inject some fluff into it. Well, that's not going to happen, as we saw in 3rd and 4th. People abandoned Troops and only took the minimum as covered early. That doesn't make much realistic sense either. Rangers don't attack in sizes. They come in squads and platoons, occasionally companies.

So if that's the case, we'll need much tighter restrictions on Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support choices. Say, one from Elites, one for Fast Attack and two Heavy Support? That would be more realistic, yes? But that wouldn't be as much fun as having options.

the 5th ed rules are waaaay more realistic, why would barack obama hold a position if Private Parker could?

We could be fighting giant flies from space.

Orkeosaurus wrote:We could be fighting giant flies from space.

Who told you about the giant flies....

Skinnattittar wrote:True, my logic depends on the fact that there is a difference between Troops, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, etc... While yours says they are all the same and act the same as each other. So while yes, you can't move forward as well without fresh non-Troops, but at least you can hold where you are, because your Troops made it.

And if you have your Elite troops or heavy support there, you can hold just as well, or even better than if you had troops there.

But with your scenarios we have to assume that the non-Troops selections are going to be willing to stick around. Which they usually aren't in all actuality.

If it's important enough to win the battle, then it's important enough for them to stick around, especially if they are ordered to...

We're also assuming that there will be an abundance of these units to do these things. There's a reason Rangers only come in Battalions and not Divisions. There aren't as many of them.

Irrelevant. Space Marines only come in companies...I guess they should never be able to hold an objective...

As I (And other people) have said before...You want people to use troops, make the individual troops better (And better can be cheaper) so that they are worth taking. Don't put unrealistic victory conditions and hamfistedly make the whole thing feel gamey.

Nice use of the 'wrong/bad fun' argument btw...

Actually, I do believe that Space Marines are improperly represented in the game. I would say that Space Marines would more commonly be deployed in squads among the Imperial Guard and occasionally as a company force. But GW will never so drastically change the way their flagship army will work, and so many people would crap their pants if their armies were suddenly disavowed.

You didn't address the fact that specialist units from the non-Troops sections would be rarer, and thus their balance in the army would need to be drastically altered to fit reality.

And I have no idea what you're talking about in that last bit there. But thus far your logic has been close ended, so I could kinda see how you might interpret 'fun' as being a pejorative?

At any rate. I have provided an abundance of evidence to refute you claims of "reality." So I'm dropping our discussion as "unresolvable" and be civil at that.

And that totally ignores the point that they control the objective...If the objective is important enough that it determines who wins the battle it would be a good use of an elite unit to have it. Troops can be moved up to hold it after the battle.

I think the issue is that people look at a game of 40k as a battle it's not! It is a small mission as part of a much larger conflict.

Elites/HQs etce tc can contest objectives. This represents you taking and holding an objective. However until the Troops arrive you have not consolidated the objective and this is what is represented by the troops holding the object.

The game is abstract and certain armies will fit this pattern better than others. Particularly all elite armies like Grey Knights and to a lesser extent you could argue the same with normal marines. However this has undeniably imprevd the flow of the game. It has become more tactical, lists have become more rounded and the game feels mroe realistic because of it.

Making troops better is not the answer. You either power them up to Elites which then become redundant or make them cheaper so you elites again become redunant as they are no longer cost effective. Either way you through out the balance of armies. Giving the troops this vital tactical role however encourages balanced army building whilst laso adding a new layer of tactics and strategem to the game. Win win really.

The best thing about 5th Ed is the change to scoring units in my book. TLOS was for me developed by a marketing guy as a gimmick.Wound alocation is now too easy to abuse (that will certainly change in 6th Ed). However I like that you can't consolidate into another assault as the balance is too in favour of assault armies as is. Other than that most of the changes are largely cosmetic or just tidy ups.

Hi all.
Flingitnow wrote.'I think the issue is that people look at a game of 40k as a battle it's not! It is a small mission as part of a much larger conflict. '

The real issue is people expect 40k to follow thier preconceptions of real world events.
Only because GW KEEPS useing very thinly disguised excuses for 'minature pimping' wrapped up in 'half understood concepts of military interaction.'

40kis an abstracted game system with a primary goal of getting people to buy lots of overpriced product .(Each special rule adds ££ to the percieved value apparently!)

Loads of other games manage to be simple simulations , with far more gameplay and far less rules.But they dont pimp any particular minature range ...

GW is a minatures company , and veiwed as such , ALL thier game development folows the mantra of short term profit with the minimum amount of actual effort.