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.

I guess stormtroopers/ drop troop don't count i guess there should just be vanilla SM then too

JohnHwangDD wrote:This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special.

My guess is that Christmas, freedom and the Baby Jeebus are also on your s#@t list.

(Kidding! If you were like that, you would play Necrons.)

If SMs are as rare as the fluff says, the Guard would need a variety of special units to do lots of things that armies have to do without the aid of the elitest special forces. Pretend the Imperial forces are like the US forces; the SMs are the Marines, while the IG are the regular army containing line infantry, Rangers, airmobile, paratroops, armoured division, artillery and engineers. Which gives plenty of room for variation.

@Savnock LMAO

To take the liberty of speaking for John, I get the feeling he really dislikes options in general. My guess is his perfect codex would be extremely set, sort of like the Necron codex. No wargear, no special rules, just a hand full of units.
Maybe fun, but it seems to me that it would get really old after a while. To me a good list is one that lends itself to a mess of variety without having to bend over backwards.

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always seen the Guard as huge, monolithic bloc. While the guys may come from a million worlds, they're more similar in equipment, doctrine, and tactics than different.

This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special. They should be perfectly ordinary in as many ways as possible. To me, the point is that Guardsmen are all the same - interchangeable, faceless, soulless dog soldiers who give their lives in service to the military machine of the Imperium.

That's an interesting view. How do you reconcile that with the fluff which generally paints Guard Regiments as being drastically different?

I chalk it up to writer's hyperbole, kind of like how INSERT QUESTIONABLE GOVERMENT PR CLAIM HERE.

I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

When every Guard army is special, with Drop Troops and COD being the order of the day, they're no longer the Guard for which the Fluff was originally written.

POST EDITED FOR POLITICAL COMMENTARY

Kilkrazy wrote:If SMs are as rare as the fluff says, the Guard would need a variety of special units to do lots of things that armies have to do without the aid of the elitest special forces. Pretend the Imperial forces are like the US forces; the SMs are the Marines, while the IG are the regular army containing line infantry, Rangers, airmobile, paratroops, armoured division, artillery and engineers. Which gives plenty of room for variation.

I would agree.

But Airbore, Rangers, Armored Cav, Engineers, Spotters, etc. are almost entirely Veterans / Elites that you're talking about, rather than ordinary Platoons.

And even then, every single one of them is still a Rifleman first.

I'd be happy to see these MOSs reflected as Veteran's options.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always seen the Guard as huge, monolithic bloc. While the guys may come from a million worlds, they're more similar in equipment, doctrine, and tactics than different.

This is why I really *hate* Doctrines. Guard shouldn't be so special. They should be perfectly ordinary in as many ways as possible. To me, the point is that Guardsmen are all the same - interchangeable, faceless, soulless dog soldiers who give their lives in service to the military machine of the Imperium.

That's an interesting view. How do you reconcile that with the fluff which generally paints Guard Regiments as being drastically different?

I chalk it up to writer's hyperbole, kind of like how the US is "winning" in "the War on Terror".

I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

When every Guard army is special, with Drop Troops and COD being the order of the day, they're no longer the Guard for which the Fluff was originally written.

What level do you think 40K abstracts things at? What level should it abstract things at?

At one end we have Infinity, Necromunda and 2nd edition which are much less abstracted and tend toward the ground scale = figure scale and 1 shot = 1 shot end of the spectrum and at the other end we have the cardboard chit based hex wargames.

I think most players prefer a middle-ground approach. I think that there's considerable disagreement about the level to which 40K is abstracted or should be abstracted. Part of this is because GW never set their goals out clearly (unlike, for example, the Battlefleet Gothic rulebook where the issue is discussed and justified).

Wehrkind wrote:To take the liberty of speaking for John, I get the feeling he really dislikes options in general. My guess is his perfect codex would be extremely set, sort of like the Necron codex. No wargear, no special rules, just a hand full of units.

Almost. My "perfect" Codex is pretty close to what we got with the Chaos Codex - lots of Fluff, lots of pictures, minimal special rules, and a nearly idiot-proof army list only provide the minimum necessary differentiation and options. In many ways, this is basically the same as the Rulebook lists that we started with in 40k3.

I think that the excess of rules only creates confusion where none is necessary. When everybody has huge special rules, nobody has special rules. A simple +1 to a stat gets lost in the shuffule of everybody having inflated stats. Having a USR is meaningless in the context of armies and units each having a half-page of special rules or against/within armies loaded to the gills with USRs.

In other words, I would prefer to see a *minimalist* approach, with a cleaner design philosophy, similar to BFG or Epic 40k / Epic Armageddon.

Asmodai wrote:What level do you think 40K abstracts things at? What level should it abstract things at?

At one end we have Infinity, Necromunda and 2nd edition which are much less abstracted and tend toward the ground scale = figure scale and 1 shot = 1 shot end of the spectrum and at the other end we have the cardboard chit based hex wargames.

I grew up playing both. But I always enjoyed playing Car Wars to Star Fleet Battles, and OGRE to ASL. For example, whenever I played SFB, I always wondered "If I'm the Captain or Fleet Commander, why is it that I'm doing the work of an engine room technician when Picard can just say 'Make it so!' and it just happens?"

As I've gotten older, I've found that I lack the time and patience for high-detail rulesets. To me, high-detail speaks of laziness, because the designer has failed to do his job and remove the unnecessary clutter that all too easily creeps in to turn what should be an enjoyable, relaxing hour leisure into drudgery and minutiae.

So if we're talking extremes, I'd rather be gaming with chits. And in many ways, I see minis as big, pretty 3-D chits, so this accounts for much of my gaming bias.

So getting back to 40k, when you look at the weapon ranges and how things work, I conclude that rules-wise 40k is fundamentally a cardboard chit game because of the ground scale. Indeed, I think 40k should be a 3mm game, rather than a 30mm game.

Of course, I also grew up as a scale modeler, so I really like the 30mm models. They're beautiful, and I derive a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction from having a nice army.

But to me, from a playability standpoint, I'd like to see a cleaner ruleset. It learns quicker, plays faster, and leaves more time for shooting the breeze with your teammates and gaming partners, rather than looking things up in books.

Thanks for the reply. It helps to understand where you're coming from.

I'm from the opposite train of thought. I like the simulation to feel authentic (hence why I like things like finding real line of sight from a model's eye view, calculating hit modifiers on that basis, etc.).

I don't think there's any ruleset that could fully reconcile the tensions between our outlooks.

Asmodai, do you play Flames of War? If so, do you have problems with the way it feels?

As you might expect, I like FoW.

I'm interested in FoW, but I haven't got around to it yet. I've got a massive painting backlog (I'm working on Imperial Guard now, after that I've got Eldar, Empire and Dwarfs ), so I'm resisting the urge to start new projects until it's reached more sane proportions.

Once that happens I do play to pick up the big British mechanized infantry army box and a few Crusaders.

Haha, I know that siren song all too well. 2 years ago, I resolved to cut back on deadwood projects, and I'm making some fair progress on the stuff that remains.

I would agree.

But Airbore, Rangers, Armored Cav, Engineers, Spotters, etc. are almost entirely Veterans / Elites that you're talking about, rather than ordinary Platoons.

And even then, every single one of them is still a Rifleman first.

It seems to me you're using the FOC in FoW as a guide to what is elite or not.

Airborne is not full of veterans or elites, it is a school any MOS can go to, even a cook (or truck driver, which was my MOS). It isn't an easy school or one that everyone gets a chance to do, but by no means are they elite or veteran, IMHO (Capt Winters aside).

Armored Cav is not elite. I served with the 3rd ACR for three years. Cav Scout is just a basic combat MOS, just like the afore mentioned rifleman (aka light infantry). I knew alot of em and they were not elite (although if you aren't cav, you aren't gak, as the saying goes).

Engineers are not elite. Have much love for the engineers and their toys but they are far from elite. I do wish there was something in 40k that resembled them (like FoW).

Spotters are not elite. One of my squad leaders was a re-speced artillery spotter. He was not elite.

Rangers are elite. They go through a much more rigorous and longer training. None of the other things you listed compare at all IRL.

I think you're using Elite in a different way than I'm using it. By "Elite", I mean "uncommon" or "special-skilled", per the 40k FOC slot. I believe that you're using Elite in a military sense as a designation for Special Forces.

So by that measure, in a game oriented around ground combat, Airborne / AirCav / ArmoredCav / Engineers etc. would more naturally map to some form of Imperial Guard Veterans in an "Elite" slot, as opposed to Platoons in a Troops slot.

@JohnhwangDD sorry about the heated post earily looks like they deleted it

Asmodai wrote:Thanks for the reply. It helps to understand where you're coming from.

I'm from the opposite train of thought. I like the simulation to feel authentic (hence why I like things like finding real line of sight from a model's eye view, calculating hit modifiers on that basis, etc.).

I don't think there's any ruleset that could fully reconcile the tensions between our outlooks.

And that's kind of the great 40k challenge isn't it. It wants to be all things to all players (veterans and noobs, friendly play and tournaments, abstract quick resolution and simulationist crunch) but that's pretty much impossible.

@skullsplitter - as they nuked whatever it was that I did to cause you to get upset, I guess it's all OK. I'm sorry for winding you up.

So by that measure, in a game oriented around ground combat, Airborne / AirCav / ArmoredCav / Engineers etc. would more naturally map to some form of Imperial Guard Veterans in an "Elite" slot, as opposed to Platoons in a Troops slot.

I disagree to an extent (at least in terms of RL). Airborne, AirCav and Armored Cav are not usually deployed in small units in a support role to platoons of ground forces, they are usually a force unto themselves, seperate and distinct (atleast in relation to the typical size of a 40k battle). This is the type of thing the doctrines rules does a much better job of emulating, rather then just relagating these types of units to elites (which isn't accurate at all in terms or Rl or 40k).

Now engineers (and the afore mentioned spotters), I can see them being an elite choice as they often are sent as small units in support of infantry (or in my case a Supply Troop), although they can most certainly be deployed in RL in the size of a typical 40k game. Having a doctrine that allowed an elite engineer unit to become a troop choice would be kinda cool.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think you're using Elite in a different way than I'm using it. By "Elite", I mean "uncommon" or "special-skilled", per the 40k FOC slot. I believe that you're using Elite in a military sense as a designation for Special Forces.

So by that measure, in a game oriented around ground combat, Airborne / AirCav / ArmoredCav / Engineers etc. would more naturally map to some form of Imperial Guard Veterans in an "Elite" slot, as opposed to Platoons in a Troops slot.

You're confusing me John. First, those units are not uncommon. Second, elite means elite - superior or best in class, which is exactly how the elite slot is described. So doctrines seems like a rather good fit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

The way I reconcile it is that SMs are much more common than the fluff (AKA propaganda) would have them. The so-called "movie marines" are about what SMs should be like if there was only 1,000 in a chapter and they had the battlefield impact they are supposed to.

In truth, SMs are an elite force in the sense of having somewhat better stats, training and equipment compared to IG, but they are not super-men, we see this every day on the battlefield (tabletop.)

This also explains why we see so many SM armies -- because there are lots of SM armies.

The Imperium is able to maintain the fiction that there are a few superhuman marines because most citizens never see any of them, only edited highlights on the TV news.

Well, suddenly 90% of my and John's arguments make sense. He want's "40k lite" or more properly "40k from the Oval Office/Command tent." He doesn't care about what the Sgt's name is, he just wants him hitting with a power fist. He doesn't care why that squad ran, just that it did, and whether or not it came back.


Personally, I like more variation. I want to be able to take a list with it's general theme and fluff, and make it my own. I want each army to play like it's own army, so much so that if I use Sisters as Counts as Marines, reading the battle report, people would know something was up without me telling them. I rather like having to know a lot about the system to really excel, as opposed to learning all the rules in a day and having the game come down to luck or terrain disposition.

Really, I think there is room for both. But not in the same system. I think to please both our camps, GW would have to have "40k Lite" and "40k ZOMG Choices!" Which might not be a bad way of going about it. The former would help new players get in (since they wouldn't have to learn a tome to play) and let people who want just smooth, streamlined game play enjoy themselves. The latter would appeal to vets who know the rules well enough that streamlining doesn't appeal to them as much as knowing whether that unit is from the 1st Tanith based on their cloaks and sniper rifles, and recognizing the differences in how they play.

It sort of reminds me of Rome and Medieval: Total War. You can do everything, from fight battles to tell cities to build sewers, or you can just manage cities and let the CPU fight, or just fight and have the CPU manage cities and army production for you, or something in between.

When you get down to it, was it not the aspect what made 40k etc. special back in the day? For me, it is always what set it apart from historical games where you had certain battles that were fought with nearly identical troops on both sides, based on what was there.

I do have to agree that Epic seems like a nice way to go. I like larger scale battles and campaigns, with specific scenarios etc. As much as I love painting and modeling the 25mm (or 30mm or whatever), if they then shrunk down to 15mm for gaming purposes, I wouldn't be so sad.
I think that is really the question though, can 25mm really do large scale battles reasonably well, or is 15mm or less needed? It seems to me that 25mm is severely limited without making such bizzare scale conventions that one wonders why they are even using such large figures. More likely 25mm is better for skirmish style engagements where individuals and squads are more personal and important than huge engagements where you have to play on a gym floor, and no one cares about how pretty a certain figure is.

Can 25mm be used successfully for large scale battles?

Yes, but not using the 40K rules.

Many historical gamers play large battles using figures from scales of 2mm up to 28mm. You obviously need more space with 28mm. However the rules make a big difference too. There are three main problems with the 40K rules that make them unsuitable for large battles.

1. Figures are moved individually.
2. Figures fight individually (for instance, arranging your troops in melee.)
3. There is too much minor variation between troops which affects things like hitting and killing and saving.

Most non-40K SF/Moderns players use smaller scales than 28mm because of weapon ranges.

Yea, that's what I was thinking. I started gaming as a lad with <=15mm games, mostly Civil War with Fire and Fury and micro armor. Now, this was over a decade ago, and when I went to the HMGS East convention in the spring I found a lot of the rules had shifted towards larger figures and a 40k/activation melding. Of course, there was also like 12" of snow that weekend, so over half the games were not running.
I think you hit the nail on the head though, that modern/SciFi games don't work well in 25mm due to weapons ranges. 40k's squad/individual structure also causes problems.
I think Warhammer Fantasy works pretty well since everything moves as groups, and so abstractions such as "Every figure is 10 men" work out. I remember the old AD&D Battle System worked similarly. Though, I think the individuals in WHFB work differently (I am a little uncertain there, not playing WHFB).

I would like to try Epic sometime if I can talk one of the guys in the store into bringing some armies, assuming they have them.

Wehrkind wrote:Well, suddenly 90% of my and John's arguments make sense. He want's "40k lite" or more properly "40k from the Oval Office/Command tent." He doesn't care about what the Sgt's name is, he just wants him hitting with a power fist. He doesn't care why that squad ran, just that it did, and whether or not it came back.


Personally, I like more variation. I want to be able to take a list with it's general theme and fluff, and make it my own. I want each army to play like it's own army, so much so that if I use Sisters as Counts as Marines, reading the battle report, people would know something was up without me telling them. I rather like having to know a lot about the system to really excel, as opposed to learning all the rules in a day and having the game come down to luck or terrain disposition.

Really, I think there is room for both. But not in the same system. I think to please both our camps, GW would have to have "40k Lite" and "40k ZOMG Choices!" Which might not be a bad way of going about it. The former would help new players get in (since they wouldn't have to learn a tome to play) and let people who want just smooth, streamlined game play enjoy themselves. The latter would appeal to vets who know the rules well enough that streamlining doesn't appeal to them as much as knowing whether that unit is from the 1st Tanith based on their cloaks and sniper rifles, and recognizing the differences in how they play.

It sort of reminds me of Rome and Medieval: Total War. You can do everything, from fight battles to tell cities to build sewers, or you can just manage cities and let the CPU fight, or just fight and have the CPU manage cities and army production for you, or something in between.

When you get down to it, was it not the aspect what made 40k etc. special back in the day? For me, it is always what set it apart from historical games where you had certain battles that were fought with nearly identical troops on both sides, based on what was there.

I do have to agree that Epic seems like a nice way to go. I like larger scale battles and campaigns, with specific scenarios etc. As much as I love painting and modeling the 25mm (or 30mm or whatever), if they then shrunk down to 15mm for gaming purposes, I wouldn't be so sad.
I think that is really the question though, can 25mm really do large scale battles reasonably well, or is 15mm or less needed? It seems to me that 25mm is severely limited without making such bizzare scale conventions that one wonders why they are even using such large figures. More likely 25mm is better for skirmish style engagements where individuals and squads are more personal and important than huge engagements where you have to play on a gym floor, and no one cares about how pretty a certain figure is.

Very interesting. I understand now why I am anathema to Johns train of thought in many posts. It is the 'simpling' of the rules that IMO are driving 40k into the ground. Many of us were attracted to the complex system and now don't like playing as much with the rules dumbed down. Tournaments are down and sales are down. It's like the old Decipher Star Wars game. That game had a strong following and a complex system to play. When Wizards took over the Star Wars CCG game, they simplified the rules and gameplay and the game tanked. Many of my 40k playing friends have been turned off by the game while still trying to hold on to it in some way. I think we are missing the complexity, even of 3rd edition, and hoping for a return to it. I don't know how long we will wait around for it though and it might be to late as is.

I hate painting small figs.

I like painting 28mm figs. I like big battles, I am a 20 year vet, and like the streamlined rules. Why play Warrior with all of it's tables and stats, when I can play dbm, and the end result is about the same?

I also think that it is very apparent that the army books play quite different from each other. Tau are not Tyranids, are not IG, are not Marines, are not Orks. It is becoming more and more apparent that they are trying to bring more focus to how each plays, just like they are doing in WHFB. It is irritating some people, but I think we need it.

I would really submit that it is less the dumbing down of the rules, than the rules being less than concise, not FAQ'd to fix obvious problems, and a lack of balance in the codexes that leads people to play a relatively few "perceived" competitive armies. When you feel you have no chance of winning, or come to rules arguments time and time again that are never solved while you play against the same two armies over and over,.. people will leave the hobby.

There is a difference between "dumbing down" and streamlining/simplification. DBA/DBM is a good example of historical rules that are simpler to play then their predecessors yet give very satisfying tactical games. (There are still many players of Warrior and WRG 6th and 7th too.)

The rules definitely need to be better written, we have discussed it so many times on Dakka and always come to the conclusion that GW won't because they don't think it matters. If you look at rules like Warmaster Ancients it's clear that GW can write rules well if they want to.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a difference between "dumbing down" and streamlining/simplification. DBA/DBM is a good example of historical rules that are simpler to play then their predecessors yet give very satisfying tactical games. (There are still many players of Warrior and WRG 6th and 7th too.)

Coming from the historical end of the hobby also, I have to call you on this. DBx is popular among DBx fans, yes, but it's otherwise regarded as an incredibly poorly written set of rules. Barker-ese is a common line heard to describe the incredibly terse language used in the rulebooks. WAB is infinitely more popular as a tourney game over the in the US in my experience. The main reasons I've gotten are better written and more easily read rules. Also from what I understand, DBx has been re-written several times to remove "ambiguities" in the rules that only ended up continually cluttering the rules and making them unreadable by the average gamer.