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.

Are armies outgrowing the rules of the game?

I'm seeing a natrual trend with armies to pack in more models. This does sell more stuff yes, but it is also neat to field large amounts of crap. I like bigger armies as a whole.

What I'm noticing though is that with this current rule set, games take longer and longer to get finished. Lots of 'Ard Boy Batreps seems to finish in turn 3 simply because there is not enough time to play the entire game. With my friends, we'll decide on a 2,000 point game and it will take upwards of 4 hours to finish. Granted, we are not under the gun and its casual play.

If the trend to large armies contiues, should the rule set change to reflect less of a skirmish action and more of a battle? If so, how would you change things?

What I've always thought was stupid is that they made space marines armies about twice as numerous as they really should be. Instead, space marines should field a few dudes that are absolutely hard as nails. Instead we have undercosted idiot-proof armies for 13 year-olds.

warpcrafter wrote:What I've always thought was stupid is that they made space marines armies about twice as numerous as they really should be. Instead, space marines should field a few dudes that are absolutely hard as nails. Instead we have undercosted idiot-proof armies for 13 year-olds.

That's true of half the armies. Chaos Space Marines, Eldar and Necron are all just as elite and individually powerful, and yet they die in droves every game too.

It's a matter of fun over fluff - playing an entire game against a squad of ~20 guys who rarely die isn't much fun. Or playing as such an army, I'd imagine, as playing as a single squad really limits your tactical choices.

... space marine armies are not undercosted idiot proof armies....

I'd say space marines are one of the more balanced codex. A well-built SM force has a good deal of trouble dealing with ork green tides, or IG armor walls, or any other competitive list.

Honersstodnt is right
Space marines are there when there is a job to be done!
(altough i favor blood angels)

Honersstodnt wrote:... space marine armies are not undercosted idiot proof armies....

I'd say space marines are one of the more balanced codex. A well-built SM force has a good deal of trouble dealing with ork green tides, or IG armor walls, or any other competitive list.

I can agree with this. They are pretty well balanced. I'd like to see more armies trend toward more balanced forces. It gives lots of options, and makes every game unique and fun.

However, I will also have to disagree with the OP, as most of the games we are playing at our club are 2000, and under. I think 2000 is the favorite by far, but 1850 is gaining in popularity.

I think that I get what the op is saying.

He is saying that 40K was originally a game that averaged in the 1000 point range and the rules and game table were set up for those point levels as opposed to the current ones. In those lower point games there were fewer units that would have more maneuvering room. Yeah, I can agree with that.

I agree with Captain Avatar. The Game used to involve more defensive based movement where you darted from cover to cover and tried out flank your opponent on the game table.

The current game is getting ridiculous with its first turn assaults and Mechanized Armour lists that create a solid wall of fast vehicles across the long board edge. These vehicles are able to be mid table or closer by the end of turn 1's movement phase and are still able to shoot because they are fast.

The game is getting to be like when a little child takes two matchbox cars and smashs them head-on repeatedly. The element of keep away, avoidance, or duck and move is fading from the game.

IMO, the game is devolving into a primitive charge/countercharge system and is starting to loose its fluidity and more complex elements that deal with range.
Its not completely gone, just that it is beginning to fade as the points levels and model counts increase while the board remains 4'x6'.

Maybe if they came up with a only able to deploy a thousand points per turn rule or something similar then the game wouldn't have such a mash'em up get into HtH slant as it does currently.

It is laughable that GW cannot see past its own 'magnificence' and accept that there could be a need in their own market for a skirmish based game as well as a full tilt war game set in the 40k universe.

Maybe GW need to resurrect epic? or take a fresh look at 'munda. Though since gamers keep buying into GW and its products there isn't much hope

The limited deployment idea sounds good. Sorta more realistic in how units arrive into a battlezone.

Has anybody ever proposed such a rule? I mean before now, of course.

If not maybe someone should propose it.

Kill Team or whatever it is called in the missions book is the skirmish game. In 4th edition it was in the main rulebook. There was also a variation called 40K In 40, which was playing a 400 point game in 40 minutes.

Of course, original 40K was essentially a skirmish game. That's why there are such complex statlines for individual soldiers.

If people want to create more room for manoeuvre you can make the table bigger or play at smaller point values. You don't need GW to create a rule.

Space is an important factor in war and should have quite an impact on the way the game plays.

I don't think SMs are to blame at all.

Kilkrazy wrote:Kill Team or whatever it is called in the missions book is the skirmish game. In 4th edition it was in the main rulebook. There was also a variation called 40K In 40, which was playing a 400 point game in 40 minutes.

Of course, original 40K was essentially a skirmish game. That's why there are such complex statlines for individual soldiers.

If people want to create more room for manoeuvre you can make the table bigger or play at smaller point values. You don't need GW to create a rule.

Space is an important factor in war and should have quite an impact on the way the game plays.

I don't think SMs are to blame at all.

One of the problems is that a lot of gamers seem to rely on the 'canonical' rules and add ons that GW release . me and others I play against have regularly been adapting rules and using house rules to have skirmish battles, and 4000 5000pt + match ups, and introduce new units and scenarios.

GW have tried with their supplements but they are still hidebound to their current core rule sets, and unfortunately, in most cases if it ain't GW you are a heretic for suggesting adaption to official rules.

It's because a lot of new players only find wargaming through GW and think GW is "The Hobby".

Hopefully as they gain experience they will learn about other aspects of wargames and come to realise that GW is not the only thing.

@ Killkrazy-I think part of the problem is that GW isto busy pushing model sales that the game is suffering.

@All Posters-It would not be hard to introduce the old scenario rule(Now the Apoc standard rule) of a max first turn deployment of half of your army with the second half of the army becoming available on second turn. Tie this rule in with points level where any battle exceeding 1500 points per side has to hold X percent of their units back for second turn deployment or for reserves.

GW could do this and have easily kept the squad battle rules in the BRB but they are to busy pushing models and the game is hurting due to this. If anyone does not believe that how the BRB affects how the armies are built I'd like to point out the steady points cap increase for tournaments through the years. These increases correspond to each efitions release.

To me, it is apparent that GW needs to take steps that don't include requiring someone to buy a 40 bloody dollar 20 page supplemental ruleset. It needs to be in the main rule book as a part of the core set of rules and standard mission deployments.

GW has consistently dropped point values and raised $$$ prices over the years. When my buddy first started Rogue Trader, 15-20 years ago, a Rhino was ~275 points to field and harder to kill than a landraider is today. Now it's a 35 point throwaway transport that costs $35 USD and people routinely field 5+ Rhinos and Razaorbacks in a normal game. Frankly, I think they've over-mechanized the game a bit, but it is what it is. Most people would rather paint 10 tanks and 40 guys than 3 tanks and 80 guys.

warpcrafter wrote:What I've always thought was stupid is that they made space marines armies about twice as numerous as they really should be. Instead, space marines should field a few dudes that are absolutely hard as nails. Instead we have undercosted idiot-proof armies for 13 year-olds.

We dont have undercosted idiot proof armies for 13 year olds... we have overcosted idiotic armies for 13 year olds parents' wallets...

So a 2000pt battle is basically a whole company of marines and vehicles costing upwards of $1000 or more, and the marketing is driven towards 13 year olds who then get their parents funds to buy lots of little plastic men and tanks they will never paint, and are going to be bored of in a few short months/years.

This game stopped being a game long ago, each new ruleset is simply an excuse to make you need to buy more moar MOAR models/books.