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.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
But the thing is past a certain point 40k no longer becomes logical. If that were the case there really wouldn't be a need for the Imperial guard, the Space Marines, or the Adeptas Sororitas as the imperial navy would just nuke everything from orbit.

Yes, it's actually a pretty good argument that 40k has too much use of ground forces, especially infantry, and too little use of WMDs, mass artillery bombardment, etc. But even when ground forces are used it's usually to take a specific objective, which means the insurgency doesn't get to fight in favorable terrain. Hiding in a remote wilderness might be great for preventing tanks from reaching you, but you probably aren't going to be accomplishing anything to hurt the enemy while you're there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
But the thing is past a certain point 40k no longer becomes logical. If that were the case there really wouldn't be a need for the Imperial guard, the Space Marines, or the Adeptas Sororitas as the imperial navy would just nuke everything from orbit.

Yes, it's actually a pretty good argument that 40k has too much use of ground forces, especially infantry, and too little use of WMDs, mass artillery bombardment, etc. But even when ground forces are used it's usually to take a specific objective, which means the insurgency doesn't get to fight in favorable terrain. Hiding in a remote wilderness might be great for preventing tanks from reaching you, but you probably aren't going to be accomplishing anything to hurt the enemy while you're there.

Logistics. If your enemy is cut off they are screwed. My guys go after logistical supply lines, enemy artillery emplacements, and harry advancing enemy units when they pass through unfavorable terrain. See long range penetration

They are not the hammer, they are the arrow that wounds the soldier allowing the hammer to more easily smash armor.

"Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men."

- George S. Patton

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Logistics. If your enemy is cut off they are screwed. My guys go after logistical supply lines, enemy artillery emplacements, and harry advancing enemy units when they pass through unfavorable terrain. See long range penetration

They are not the hammer, they are the arrow that wounds the soldier allowing the hammer to more easily smash armor.

This theory works a lot better when your enemy can't just deliver stuff directly to/from orbit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Logistics. If your enemy is cut off they are screwed. My guys go after logistical supply lines, enemy artillery emplacements, and harry advancing enemy units when they pass through unfavorable terrain. See long range penetration

They are not the hammer, they are the arrow that wounds the soldier allowing the hammer to more easily smash armor.

This theory works a lot better when your enemy can't just deliver stuff directly to/from orbit.

Aircraft are most certainly involved in this effort as well. If your enemy is cut off from orbital supply lines due to aircraft, the presence of another opposing fleet, adequate Surface to air sites, etc. Then they are going to have to rely on production from the ground as well as what they brought with them. Sure you can blockade an Agri world, but you are not going to starve it unless you actually deny them access to food. The only way to do so is to #1 blow up those farms from orbit (which won't happen because 40k logic), or #2 you have guys secure those farms or if that proves too difficult/inefficient prevent those supplies from reaching the front line soldiers. That is where my guys fall in.

In fact my guys The 1st Arkan Volunteer Group are in part based on the First American Volunteer Group (The Flying Tigers)

 Peregrine wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:
Remove the ability of any unit to claim an objective and return it to Troops choices that have the Infantry unit type.

Which is a bad idea because it kills off fluffy armies that focus on units other than troops choice infantry squads. For example, my IG armored company goes back to having no scoring units and therefore no realistic hope of winning a game.

I hate to sound like I don't care about your army, but I don't care about your army Tanks and armored vehicles can seize ground, but they can't hold it. Returning that ability to Infantry Troops forces people to take, y'know, Infantry Troops. If your army is composed of nothing but tanks, then you'll need to adjust your tactics accordingly (i.e., tabling).

One of the reasons 40K is screwed up right now is that GW has tried to pander to every special snowflake, instead of building in weaknesses to some lists.

Tanks can absolutely hold ground depending on the conditions of the engagement.

That said, yes the scale of the game has gotten absurd, though the armored company IG lists have been around in some form for most editions of this game going back to at least 3rd edition.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Tanks can absolutely hold ground depending on the conditions of the engagement.

That said, yes the scale of the game has gotten absurd, though the armored company IG lists have been around in some form for most editions of this game going back to at least 3rd edition.

No tanker in his right mind wants to enter an environment where they have poor sightlines and no infantry support. Armored units are spearheads and linebreakers, you'll never see a modern armored division operate without attached infantry. My point was to return a modicum of power and utility to the humble rifleman, give him an ability in the game that can't be claimed by any other unit.

I remember the old WD Armored Company and the "Lucky Shot" rules. While an army of tanks may not be considered OP these days, I still don't think they deserve special consideration when it comes to making Infantry Troops the only scoring unit in the game.

Most of the things on our 40k table are completely useless in a 40k universe war. Almost all races don't care at all about the survival of the other races infrastructure or civilians. This makes anything with less fire-power then a light cruiser completely obsolete in the common 40k fluff scenarios.

Sure you could still use rifles vs criminals, a chaos cult uprising in a hyve city or the clean up sweeps after a bombardment but it is absolutely useless to deploy light-medium ground troops in an open warfare on an alien world.

Sledgehammer, you're wasting time if you're going to try to win a "realism" argument with Peregrine, and the only real answer you need as to why a game about putting your nice army down only to remove the whole thing on the basis of "oh, because nukes" is because that would be a boring as feth game

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Unless you char the entire planet, there will still be places to hide, and areas to fight from. Hell look at mt suribachi we bombed and shelled that place for forever and there were still japs crawling all over the place.

Sure, but those places to fight may or may not be places that can allow light infantry to hide and fight effectively. Great, the open deserts are untouched, good luck surviving against patrolling bomber formations. Or have fun "fighting" in a random forest halfway around the planet from all of the valuable strategic objectives.

If a mountain can stop bombs, than an underground fortress complex made of ceramite can hold off orbital bombardments.

An underground fortress is not an insurgency, it's a conventional military strategy. And troops sitting in a fortress are useless, point some artillery at it and shell anything that tries to come out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
That is kind of my point. We used so much ordinance, and yet the infantry were still very relevant.

Again, because of rules of engagement combined with less-effective ordnance than 40k. The infantry would not have been relevant if the US had been willing to nuke a buffer zone 100 miles across between North Vietnam and everything of value, combined with nuclear attacks on all North Vietnamese cities, industrial capacity, military bases, etc. Infantry are much less relevant in a campaign of extermination, which is what virtually every war in 40k consists of. Killing civilians with WMD attacks on military targets is just a nice bonus, since you're going to kill all of the civilians anyway once you get done eliminating the military threat.

But the thing is past a certain point 40k no longer becomes logical. If that were the case there really wouldn't be a need for the Imperial guard, the Space Marines, or the Adeptas Sororitas as the imperial navy would just nuke everything from orbit.

It would. 40K has zero logic as is.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Sledgehammer, you're wasting time if you're going to try to win a "realism" argument with Peregrine, and the only real answer you need as to why a game about putting your nice army down only to remove the whole thing on the basis of "oh, because nukes" is because that would be a boring as feth game

Well within the way that I believe the universe operates, it makes sense for my regiment to exist and fight that the way it does, but only if there are units and regiments that fulfill other roles. I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to defend against the notion that in a universal sense, the rifleman is completely useless. There is still always headcannon, and that is fine, but I think 40k should at least allow a multitude of possible fighting styles and for them to be properly represented in the rules.

What I really intended for this thread was for it to be a discussion on how to implement rules that would allow for more tactical and fun infantry engagements.
Here is how I would like to play. :

I might want one squad up front and center equipped with carapace armor. That squad is then flanked by two lighter squads. Behind them are sentinels and heavy weapons teams providing on location fire support.

The idea would be to send the heavy squad up front to draw the enemies fire and due to their armor they are going to be harder to take down. Whilst the enemy is preoccupied with taking down that squad, I send up the two light squads along the flanks. Those guys are are now being supported with suppression fire from the heavy weapons teams. Any additional units in the back are going to be combat ineffective due to the volume of suppression fire.Those two squads on the flanks can then close the gap and take out any enemies that were foolish enough to reveal themselves. I want that kind of tactical thinking in my 40k and I can guarantee that that kind of stuff happens all of the time in the universe.

It depends - fluffwise? Yes, riflemen are common and easy to produce and there are very few engagements where super heavies/GMC's see action. Most armies are made out of core infantry.
Crunchwise? No, Riflemen might as well be represented by wound counters on a single model on a massive base which represents the section. All the figures act as are glorified wound markers and the occasional extra lasgun shot. That said, I have had several engagements won for me by my ever tenacious Veterans so they can sometimes fill a purpose beyond bubblewrap and wound counters.

I think Warpath works a little like that. You have a suppression mechanic there, and infantry are a bit hardier thanks to how the damage system works.
Antares is similar in that it has a pinning mechanic, but I don't think there are any suppressive weapons like you described.

But yeah, 40k could use something like that. There are pinning checks, but those are pretty easy to pass.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I think Warpath works a little like that. You have a suppression mechanic there, and infantry are a bit hardier thanks to how the damage system works.
Antares is similar in that it has a pinning mechanic, but I don't think there are any suppressive weapons like you described.

But yeah, 40k could use something like that. There are pinning checks, but those are pretty easy to pass.

The way I want it to work is that it should be very tedious taking out an enemy that is dug in, but take away their cover and they should be easier to kill. The way to victory is positioning your units in such a way that they can break up points in an enemies defensive line and then exploit those points to then crush the enemy.

For instance If you can take out a bunker, or a house, or a particular enemy with a good vantage point, you then can then move through the area that he had fire on. What this does is then give you the ability to pass through the enemies fields of fire and then expose their flanks.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Sledgehammer, you're wasting time if you're going to try to win a "realism" argument with Peregrine, and the only real answer you need as to why a game about putting your nice army down only to remove the whole thing on the basis of "oh, because nukes" is because that would be a boring as feth game

Well within the way that I believe the universe operates, it makes sense for my regiment to exist and fight that the way it does, but only if there are units and regiments that fulfill other roles. I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to defend against the notion that in a universal sense, the rifleman is completely useless. There is still always headcannon, and that is fine, but I think 40k should at least allow a multitude of possible fighting styles to be properly represented in the rules.

What I really intended for this thread was for it to be a discussion on how to implement rules that would allow for more tactical and fun infantry engagements.
Here is how I would like to play. :

I might want one squad up front and center equipped with carapace armor. That squad is then flanked by two lighter squads. Behind them are sentinels and heavy weapons teams providing on location fire support.

The idea would be to send the heavy squad up front to draw the enemies fire and due to their armor they are going to be harder to take down. Whilst the enemy is preoccupied with taking down that squad, I send up the two light squads along the flanks. Those guys that are being supported with suppression fire from the heavy weapons teams. Any additional units in the back are going to be combat ineffective due to the volume of suppression fire.Those two squads on the flanks can then close the gap and take out any enemies that were foolish enough to reveal themselves. I want that kind of tactical thinking in my 40k and I can guarantee that that kind of stuff happens all of the time in the universe.

And no-one is preventing you from deploying your men in such a way and playing them like that. If you want to get bonuses from suppression or from flanking though, you're playing the wrong game.

Here's the problems:
The carapace troops could easily get destroyed by enemy firepower. So many things are AP4 now, those guys will be shredded. More bodies works better from a gameplay point.
Suppression is represented by Pinning in game. And only Mortar Weapon Teams have it, by virtue of Barrage. However, Pinning is not very reliable due to enemy Leadership, which is most likely 7/8+.
Flanking has no discernible benefit unless it involves moving through cover or past LOS blockers.

Now I'm not saying that your light infantry don't exist in the 40k universe - they do. (See Tanith First and Only)
However, these regiments are rarely seen on table, because they lack the durability and damage output that the rest of the guard army can bring.

Here's the best tips on how to play riflemen well.
1) Play a different system. Infinity seems to suit this, and HoR's Kill Team certainly focuses on the lighter infantry.

2) Play a game against lighter opponents. Cultists, other guardsmen, LatD. Play it in a heavily covered area, disallow tanks and MCs and suchlike, and house rule that any ranged weapons stronger than S6 (save for krak missiles) are banned.
You seem to be citing rifles as useful against other human opponents, but they become fairly weak when they fight the more exotic foes. If you wanted a narrative, a fireteam of guardsman putting down a rebel uprising would fit this fluff very well.

But unfortunately, on the standard tabletop, in the face of tanks, MCs and elite killing machines, rifleman tactics go to pot, and really do become useless.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.

Are you still pretending that Reconnaissance Patrols are the same thing as front-line battle units? Their abilities should be like those of Alaitoc in 3rd edition.

The Vietnam War was not all like you imagine it. Their were tank battles and artillery duels. They had a meaningful air force.

The country was only about 1/3 forested, too. It's not all jungle. Jungles don't support entire civilizations.

I agree with your desires for how the game should be modified. I play Imperial Guard. But I am going to call BS on BS arguments.

40k is not a game where a LRRP makes sense. And you know it. So why do you keep insisting? They make sense for Kill Team, but not regular games of 40k.

Cheers,
Steven

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, because of rules of engagement combined with less-effective ordnance than 40k. The infantry would not have been relevant if the US had been willing to nuke a buffer zone 100 miles across between North Vietnam and everything of value, combined with nuclear attacks on all North Vietnamese cities, industrial capacity, military bases, etc. Infantry are much less relevant in a campaign of extermination, which is what virtually every war in 40k consists of. Killing civilians with WMD attacks on military targets is just a nice bonus, since you're going to kill all of the civilians anyway once you get done eliminating the military threat.

Actually, that is not the way the Imperium fights most of the time. It is much more expansive in time and resources to bring in an entire new population than it is to just sacrifice a few million extra Guardsmen so you can take the world in a somewat more intact state. Not to mention that a single nuke is likely more valueable than an entire IG regiment. Infantry becomes a lot more valueable when it is an infinite resource. In war, it is not the strength of weapons that decide victory, but the economy. When the use of infantry is more economical than the use of orbital bombardments, you use infantry.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

The idea would be to send the heavy squad up front to draw the enemies fire and due to their armor they are going to be harder to take down. Whilst the enemy is preoccupied with taking down that squad, I send up the two light squads along the flanks. Those guys are are now being supported with suppression fire from the heavy weapons teams. Any additional units in the back are going to be combat ineffective due to the volume of suppression fire.Those two squads on the flanks can then close the gap and take out any enemies that were foolish enough to reveal themselves. I want that kind of tactical thinking in my 40k and I can guarantee that that kind of stuff happens all of the time in the universe.

That would be a great game. But that would have to be a game with only infantry and light vehicles. Realistically, infantry should be massacred in the open field by most of the heavier stuff that is in 40k. And that is getting back to the original question, because with 40k in its current state, I no longer see a place for the common not-superheavily-armoured-superhuman rifleman.
Either there must be a lot more restrictions on the amount of heavy firepower you can bring out in 40k, or infantry must receive an overhaul so they would focus on specific tasks that allows them to compete with bigger stuff in those areas(like you could allow infantry to dig in at objectives to make them very hard to remove. This would make them better at holding objectives. Or there could also be specialised units like cheap tank-hunting squads (like 5 men all with meltaguns) that ride in fast transports. Basically a more effective and specialised version of melta veterans in chimeras)

Eisenfresser wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.

Are you still pretending that Reconnaissance Patrols are the same thing as front-line battle units? Their abilities should be like those of Alaitoc in 3rd edition.

The Vietnam War was not all like you imagine it. Their were tank battles and artillery duels. They had a meaningful air force.

The country was only about 1/3 forested, too. It's not all jungle. Jungles don't support entire civilizations.
Cheers,
Steven

Noooo I was explaining why they were used and not arguing that they fought in the same as other troops, or that other types of engagements didn't exist. I wasn't talking about the vietnam war as a whole. I was talking about them within the context of where they primarily operated.

I have the opposite problem: Baneblades really aren't good.

In an era where D-weapon templates exist, a massive tank that is nearly 600 points after reasonable upgrades is disastrously bad. An Imperial Knight is better for cheaper.

I run a superheavy tank regiment in 30k that I also play in 40k, and the typical deployment is one Leviathan detachment of three Baneblades and then some supporting troops. But this army isn't good because it doesn't ignore cover (making enemy cover-based infantry like Stealthsuits very difficult to shift), it doesn't have any high-ROF antitank guns (four shots ranging from Str 9-10 at BS3) and has far too many weapons that are functionally useless (like Heavy Bolters) because no one takes Light Infantry vulnerable to Heavy Bolters anymore.

 drunken0elf wrote:
"Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men."

- George S. Patton

This.


"Rifleman" is just another term for the infantry, the average foot soldier. As a former tanker, I can say that infantry, especially the "mech legs", are still a critical component in modern mechanized warfare. And realistically, infantry would have equipment to deal with current threats on the battlefield, such as anti-tank, MANPADs, anti-material, ability to call in support, etc.


Warhammer 40,000, especially the current rules set, doesn't reflect this very well. The Imperial Guard is a fairly well equipped part of the Imperium's armed forces, even units that are considered "expendable" (like the Death Korps or Savlar Chem Dogs). Being the core of the modern Imperium's armed forces, they should have the training and gear to deal with a variety of threats. Some units (like the Cadian regiments) do, but they use them poorly in any story or sourcebook written because it's all about making the SPHESS MUHREENS look awesome (and thus, selling more of their models/minis). And of course, GRIMDARK.

 the_Armyman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Tanks can absolutely hold ground depending on the conditions of the engagement.

That said, yes the scale of the game has gotten absurd, though the armored company IG lists have been around in some form for most editions of this game going back to at least 3rd edition.

No tanker in his right mind wants to enter an environment where they have poor sightlines and no infantry support. Armored units are spearheads and linebreakers, you'll never see a modern armored division operate without attached infantry.

In large part yes, but then infantry also generally don't operate without vehicle support either, they usually go hand in hand. There are instances where armor absolutely can hold ground, particularly in more open terrain. German heavy tank units in WW2 for instance were able to successfully engage in defensive holding actions often without direct infantry support when operating from concealed positions and engaging opponents advancing long distances over open ground. Now, this wouldn't work in an urban battlefield obviously, but it all depends on the circumstances.

My point was to return a modicum of power and utility to the humble rifleman, give him an ability in the game that can't be claimed by any other unit.

This is a somewhat hamfisted way to do that I think. Even in 5E, when only non-vehicle Troops could score, that didn't really help balance all that much, and in many situations it may not make sense (e.g. if no enemy is nearby and you have a tank parked on an objective...that objective has no good reason not be be claimed, or why do those Grey Knight Terminators get to score but not those Ultramarines Terminators?). I think infantry simply need more options than "move/shoot/assault", and the overall scale and movement utility of the game re-assessed. The big problem is that 40k is trying to do what 3 different games used to do, and it's just not working.

I remember the old WD Armored Company and the "Lucky Shot" rules. While an army of tanks may not be considered OP these days, I still don't think they deserve special consideration when it comes to making Infantry Troops the only scoring unit in the game.

I think the bigger issues isn't just "infantry", there's lots of battles where having tanks count as scoring could make sense. These battles aren't strategic holding actions, they're short clashes lasting a couple of minutes or less, having some allowance for that can make some sense. The bigger problem isn't having non-infantry units that can score, it's having tons of disposable scoring units that can end up anywhere and everywhere (think small jetbike squads, drop pods, etc) coupled with increasingly insane power bloat of certain kinds of units and armies with units that simply cannot be successfully engaged by common infantry units. Infantry can do things against a Leman Russ company, but not really so much a Knight detachment which has equal firepower and probably better resiliency and certainly better speed with a devastating assault component to boot. Infantry have trouble when some armies get jetbike Troops units that put out more long range mid-strength firepower than an entire IG gunline.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

I was talking about them within the context of where they primarily operated.

Most fights would be man v man or alien.
Armoured vehicle support wouldnt be as numerous in RL.
But IG players like to think a division of them would be looking after .5 of a squad, and able to control a city block.

All the argument is, Our regular not enough cannons (bolters) are crap. We die to easy. Most IG carrying S6 was the beginning of the problem

I completely hate the scale of Infinity or Gates of Antares, because they are infantry only, and the entire point of infantry is that they are small targets which are difficult to kill. There need to be air strikes and heavy artillery everywhere specifically to have a good infantry game. Tanks would be terrible at resisting air strikes and Knight-engine scale attacks. Knights would be absolutely absysmal at resisting air strikes, especially since they don't have the mass or power generation that Titans do. There should also be more of the profile characteristics involved in whether riflemen are good units or not - attacks, initiative, more active use of leadership.

Now that 40k finally has the model support for flyers, mass bikes, engines, and all those other things that have 12"+ moves, special moves, relentless, and T > 6, infantry rules have to have their own answer to those things. Infantry are the opposite of those things, they are slow, they can't use particularly heavy weapons at all and especially not while moving, and they are really squishy. They are the opposite of relentless. However, the factions all still need and use infantry, so the opposite of relentless must be something good.

I have a system that makes win a fire fight and test their leadership in order to move, lets them do more damage based on their leadership and their position, and gives units defense bonuses based on their experience and against larger creatures, so infantry in cover are hard to kill for aircraft, and scout sentinels and warwalkers are harder to hit for super heavy walkers and GCs, and veterans are harder to kill for regular units.

Gates of Antares is not infantry only. There are vehicle models and artillery.

Isn't most of the problem the fact that "meta" lists used in common play are absolutely disconnected from what an army would deploy based on the stories represented in the fluff?

If we look at the big elephant in the room, the Eldar would be hard pressed to willingly deploy as many wraiths as get tossed around on the table unless you're looking at Lyanden. Wraiths are like a last resort type thing as the use of them is taboo in and of itself. But when you go play somewhere the sight of them is just "meh, whatever, here they are again..."

We get breakdowns of how armies typically behave in our codex, yet many lists don't even deploy what would be typical of their army. Just looking at the typical "Use scouts instead of actual Marines" for the Space Marines is an example, where the durability and dangerous bolters of the Marines are actually feared when they show up by even the Eldar. Scouts would be valuable in seeing what the enemy has and how they're deployed, but they're not going to be the only troops Space Marines are going to send in to a fight. The Tau might not be as scared, but Assault Marines are something they would fear coming from somewhere hidden on the field of battle, even with interceptor possibilities.

The common place strategies used on the table have stepped so far from what your own books tell you that your army would use that you're saying "yeah they don't work because of the mass amounts of top notch heavy items used by us." Yet, that's not going to be what these armies use unless they absolutely have to in an escalated conflict. Marines aren't going to be pouring Land Raiders into every conflict that pops up. The IG aren't going to be approved to send masses of Baneblades, Stormlords, etc to conflicts as the costs outweigh the deployment of them even if they would help. Read the description of the Deathstrike as one example.

Of course the problem comes in that we don't worry about this sort of stuff when making lists to use in battles, as they aren't really part of the game. Yes one can argue that points attempt to simulate this, but they really don't.

Forge the narrative. I love it. Makes games play like the books and fluff. Guard units on foot with a few tanks heading into a mountain to find the eldar. Eldar aren't going to show up with Knights and all jet bikes. Makes no logical sense. They'll try to repulse with troops and tanks themselves.

You can't nuke everything that has an enemy on it or valuable worlds would be lost for ever. Heck look at vraks. Even if they wanted to they couldn't nuke it or siege it out.

Play your pricey hobby as you want. Be DMs for once. The rules aren't terrible. The tourney scene is.

Zelarias wrote:
Isn't most of the problem the fact that "meta" lists used in common play are absolutely disconnected from what an army would deploy based on the stories represented in the fluff?

If we look at the big elephant in the room, the Eldar would be hard pressed to willingly deploy as many wraiths as get tossed around on the table unless you're looking at Lyanden. Wraiths are like a last resort type thing as the use of them is taboo in and of itself. But when you go play somewhere the sight of them is just "meh, whatever, here they are again..."

We get breakdowns of how armies typically behave in our codex, yet many lists don't even deploy what would be typical of their army. Just looking at the typical "Use scouts instead of actual Marines" for the Space Marines is an example, where the durability and dangerous bolters of the Marines are actually feared when they show up by even the Eldar. Scouts would be valuable in seeing what the enemy has and how they're deployed, but they're not going to be the only troops Space Marines are going to send in to a fight. The Tau might not be as scared, but Assault Marines are something they would fear coming from somewhere hidden on the field of battle, even with interceptor possibilities.

The common place strategies used on the table have stepped so far from what your own books tell you that your army would use that you're saying "yeah they don't work because of the mass amounts of top notch heavy items used by us." Yet, that's not going to be what these armies use unless they absolutely have to in an escalated conflict. Marines aren't going to be pouring Land Raiders into every conflict that pops up. The IG aren't going to be approved to send masses of Baneblades, Stormlords, etc to conflicts as the costs outweigh the deployment of them even if they would help. Read the description of the Deathstrike as one example.

Of course the problem comes in that we don't worry about this sort of stuff when making lists to use in battles, as they aren't really part of the game. Yes one can argue that points attempt to simulate this, but they really don't.

That's one of the nice things about formations, they're generally good representations of what would happen in the fluff. A codex adherant chapter would totally deploy with what the gladius gives them.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The rifle is used by one man, to kill another. There has never been a greater force equilizer in the history of mankind. One must use his brain and his brawn to maximize his killing potential. With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.

Currently the rifleman cannot use his brain in accordance with his brawn because the flanking of an enemy is ineffectual on the result of an attack. Positioning is in large, irrelevant in regards to you and the enemy. Furthermore the taking out of other infantrymen with the rifle is widely inefficient given the effectiveness and ubiquity of more specialized weaponry.

This saddens me greatly as the triumph of one squad over the other should be representative of the squads capabilities in the expertise of their bodies and minds, and not the quality of their weaponry.

Yep.... pretty much what sucks about 40k right now. Imperial Guard is just D-Day running up against Nazi machineguns, without a fleet behind you and limited to the amount of men you have in your army case...