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.

Hey all, first post in a long time.

So I wanted to gauge what the community thought of the basis of game tactics in reality. The genesis of this idea was in my play time with an IG army. The use of "blob squads" rings kind of strangely with me: using a group of men like 'tentacles' on the field of battle to extend to an objective or provide cover for troops. What would the case for those men be in reality?

I've thought really hard about this and I feel as if the use of "real" tactics on the game board is difficult to achieve. The reason for this is the style of play, that being turn based, and essentially inorganic.

However, I have always attempted to mimic how actual commanders would respond to threats and I have designed my ideal IG army accordingly. In games, I have always attempted to follow this mantra, and despite several losses, I feel as if I bring a different feel to the table. . .

How do you guys feel about this? Should realism be a focus for players at the table? Would you find it more fun if more players attempted to draw "real" responses to the battlefield?

I'm honestly not sure what to think, and all I have are my opinions.

Cheers!

Personally, I think thats crazy. If you want to play your army, as close to real life as possible, then cool man, glad you found a different way to play. But if theres a trick/tip that I can use to better my odds of winning the match, Im going to do it, no matter how unrealistic it seems. Not to mention, this is a fantasy SciFi game, based in the year 40,000. Realistic is thrown out the window

It depends I guess. I am a certain amount of either way. I enjoy playing my armies "fluffy" which means you can look at the table and kinda see how they would resemble themselves in the lore. However, I won't literally restrict myself so much as to FORCE the fluff into it. I like playing mass Black Templars, but I will bring along some Land Speeders for support. A bit un-fluffy? Yea...just a bit. But it does wonders for the ability to play the game. My Eldar are the same way, I like rolling around with Aspect Warriors but some of them are just too terrible to play...that roll gets filled with things that may be better for other Craftworlds but I take them because they work well in my lists and I enjoy the models.

Now if you are talking about REAL WORLD reactions to issues in 40k there is a very easy solution. Play IG, bring as many big guns and planes as you can to the battle and win. That is how we would handle things in real life!

Realism in a game that involves daemons, aliens, corpse emperors, space-zombies, space-elves, space-orks...

Fantasy in space... isn't there something about opposites, fantasy vs reality?

p.s shouldn't this be in fluff forum? This isn't really a tactics thread.

I play daemons... and orks.
No matter what I choose to do, I can justify it in 'reality'.

Honestly their might be a wargame with a more realistic environment that you might enjoy more and could find like minded people.

*calls in Marauder Destroyer strike with bombs that actually do what a real 500lb bomb would do, not a mere mortar shell*

Good game. Play again?

 Darkstar2033 wrote:
Hey all, first post in a long time.

So I wanted to gauge what the community thought of the basis of game tactics in reality. The genesis of this idea was in my play time with an IG army. The use of "blob squads" rings kind of strangely with me: using a group of men like 'tentacles' on the field of battle to extend to an objective or provide cover for troops. What would the case for those men be in reality?

Just think of them as a small detachment being sent forward to take ground or an objective - it doesn't represent them walking out there and standing still to block shots fired. They are on the move, or pinned down by fire, kneeling down and taking shots at the enemy while trying to push forward. It's not as common a tactic anyways, now that you can focus fire on a line of IG trying to stand around in the middle of the field, and watch them disappear.

 Hollowman wrote:
Just think of them as a small detachment being sent forward to take ground or an objective - it doesn't represent them walking out there and standing still to block shots fired. They are on the move, or pinned down by fire, kneeling down and taking shots at the enemy while trying to push forward. It's not as common a tactic anyways, now that you can focus fire on a line of IG trying to stand around in the middle of the field, and watch them disappear.

Err, why? You realize you're talking about an Imperial Guard unit, right? The army where the standard way of clearing a minefield is to march an infantry squad through it, and you have entire regiments (DKoK, for example) dedicated to the principle of "I have more men than you have bullets, I win". If anything suicide blob squads are the "fluffy" way to play the army, and using sensible tactics is just playing the game to win.

(Plus, as I noted, "realism" means "air strike and/or artillery obliterates your army before turn 1, good game". You don't want to play using realism in 40k.)

With the real-time length of a 40k game being maybe 30-60 seconds, there's little chance of an air-strike or similar.
It doesn't take long for a squad to get from one side of the battlefield to the other.

Using game terms for real life, an objective might be a wounded soldier, or a highly defensible position.

But, there's no way we can use real-life tactics for deep-strikes, or invisibility, let alone psychics.
As for a lot of the weapons, such as poison, D-cannons, plasma, etc, there's not a lot of knowledge we can use to account for them.

Sci-fi is sci-fi, and we can only really compare 40k combat against what we see in movies.
A battle between 2 IG armies might be recognisable, but SM vs 'nids?

I like where you are heading with this and I agree with some realism

The way that manifests in my gameplay is no named characters, there is only one in the galaxy yet there is multiples of that named character in each tournament - im across all the justifications, and I agree they buff lists, but I just dont like using them

I think your saying the same thing, that you like your side of the game to reflect something that appeals to you.

Named characters are a fluffy way to put a model on the table.
I have Pedro Kantor in my list, but I don't play Crimson Fists. So, it's not Kantor, it's Captain Bob, who was trained by Pedro. It's a template to fit around my lists, and the names can be changed to fit.
How else would Eldrad, who died long ago, be fighting Tyranids on a core Imperial world? Not that I know the fluff why that could not happen...

What the this isn't really a tactics thread its a fluff thread


And such a silly argument. Why isn't my game of plastic space mangs fighting orks full of realism <_<

 Jihallah wrote:
What the this isn't really a tactics thread its a fluff thread


And such a silly argument. Why isn't my game of plastic space mangs fighting orks full of realism <_<

You're right, I mis-posted. I guess I felt the idea was tactics, and it got lumped under there in my head. I tend to over-think quite a bit.

However I think you're going overboard saying that it's 'silly'. . . I think there's some really good feedback here about the use and role of realism, and I tend to agree with the individuals who look at realism as a bit of a showstopper (see Peregrine's post, haha!).

I have a question for those of you that posted: Do you ever try to get into the mindset of your own army?
I think that's the ultimate question, and it forms the basis for my original idea. That particular mindset, be it fear, orky anger, tyranid hunger, or other such would become a sort of reality in that sense, right?

I really like this thread so far though, there are alot more perspectives about this issue than I imagined. I figured there would only be 2 camps with fairly limited views either way, but I am happily mistaken!

 Skinnereal wrote:
Named characters are a fluffy way to put a model on the table.
I have Pedro Kantor in my list, but I don't play Crimson Fists. So, it's not Kantor, it's Captain Bob, who was trained by Pedro. It's a template to fit around my lists, and the names can be changed to fit.
How else would Eldrad, who died long ago, be fighting Tyranids on a core Imperial world? Not that I know the fluff why that could not happen...

This is pretty much what I do. Obviously my Farseer isn't Eldrad....he's been dead for quite some time NOR is he from Biel-Tan. But I still want to utilize a Psyker as powerful as him, so I bring his stats and not his fluff personally.

I think there is a distinction here that deserves to be made.

Realism in the Fluff: How do your troops compare to the real thing. . . (names, composition, etc.)?
Realism on the Table: How do you use your troops. . .(in a manner similar to that of the actual army, or otherwise. . .)?

Just throwing that out there to be chewed upon.

I play games for escapism, not realism.

For me, realism in fluff doesn't really matter save me not using any named characters.

For a fluffy play style, it would be hard not to do so with the Eldar since each major craftworld pretty much covers every tactic (both viable and not so much).

Warhammer 40,000 is probably the least militarily realistic mini war game out there. If you want realism you came to the wrong place. The Chainswords and Wolf cavalry should have been the first hints.

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, why? You realize you're talking about an Imperial Guard unit, right? The army where the standard way of clearing a minefield is to march an infantry squad through it, and you have entire regiments (DKoK, for example) dedicated to the principle of "I have more men than you have bullets, I win". If anything suicide blob squads are the "fluffy" way to play the army, and using sensible tactics is just playing the game to win.

(Plus, as I noted, "realism" means "air strike and/or artillery obliterates your army before turn 1, good game". You don't want to play using realism in 40k.)

Why? Because we are talking about Imperial Guard, not Space Marines. Sure they are being sent to their death, but that doesn't mean they are going to stand their impassively and let the bullets Hit them. It's the commanders job to send people to their death, and the troops job to try and make their own death as hard as possible. So yea, they are probably crouched over, firing back, and on the move. It just looks like a wall of static bullet magnets because models are static.

Further, air strikes and artillery have not stopped close combat fire fights in modern warfare, so why would they have stopped it in future warfare where enemies are often so heavily armored or so speedy that relying on either to fully break an army would be almost impossible? At some point you have to stop the long rsnge shelling and send in the ground troops.

 Hollowman wrote:
Why? Because we are talking about Imperial Guard, not Space Marines. Sure they are being sent to their death, but that doesn't mean they are going to stand their impassively and let the bullets Hit them. It's the commanders job to send people to their death, and the troops job to try and make their own death as hard as possible. So yea, they are probably crouched over, firing back, and on the move. It just looks like a wall of static bullet magnets because models are static.

Sure, but a cover save isn't necessarily that the target is hidden from view. A meatshield squad offering cover to a tank could be giving a chance to miss by standing between the shooter and the target and throwing out a hail of lasgun fire. The enemy anti-tank gunner knows exactly where the tank is, but his aim is thrown off by having to worry about the meatshields.

Or, it could just be a wall of meatshields. If the Emperor orders you to stand up and catch bullets, then you stand up and catch bullets.

Further, air strikes and artillery have not stopped close combat fire fights in modern warfare, so why would they have stopped it in future warfare where enemies are often so heavily armored or so speedy that relying on either to fully break an army would be almost impossible? At some point you have to stop the long rsnge shelling and send in the ground troops.

Two words: collateral damage. We don't use a "nuke it until it glows" approach in real wars because we have a slight moral problem with exterminating entire civilian populations just to ensure we get the bad guys. 40k on the other hand, is a universe where genocide is the default and the only reason to avoid bombing an enemy hospital is that you don't have enough bombs (but once you win the war you'll go bomb it of course).

Of course this would be boring as hell on the tabletop, so we just pretend that orbital bombardment doesn't exist and give aircraft weapons that are laughably weak.

 Peregrine wrote:

Further, air strikes and artillery have not stopped close combat fire fights in modern warfare, so why would they have stopped it in future warfare where enemies are often so heavily armored or so speedy that relying on either to fully break an army would be almost impossible? At some point you have to stop the long rsnge shelling and send in the ground troops.

Two words: collateral damage. We don't use a "nuke it until it glows" approach in real wars because we have a slight moral problem with exterminating entire civilian populations just to ensure we get the bad guys. 40k on the other hand, is a universe where genocide is the default and the only reason to avoid bombing an enemy hospital is that you don't have enough bombs (but once you win the war you'll go bomb it of course).

Of course this would be boring as hell on the tabletop, so we just pretend that orbital bombardment doesn't exist and give aircraft weapons that are laughably weak.

There are many justifications possible for not nuking the paricular area. Titans factory nearby, a relic, a need for workforce and resources from given world etc.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
There are many justifications possible for not nuking the paricular area. Titans factory nearby, a relic, a need for workforce and resources from given world etc.

I'm not talking about just nuclear weapons, a bombing run from a Marauder would wipe out the entire area of a tabletop game without destroying a nearby building, and the only reason it doesn't is that GW gave flyers laughably weak weapons for "game balance".

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
There are many justifications possible for not nuking the paricular area. Titans factory nearby, a relic, a need for workforce and resources from given world etc.

I'm not talking about just nuclear weapons, a bombing run from a Marauder would wipe out the entire area of a tabletop game without destroying a nearby building, and the only reason it doesn't is that GW gave flyers laughably weak weapons for "game balance".

Marauders might be actualy scarce in the area, also the Imperium is quite backwards in technology so it's more like plama and laser World War II than modern warfare, at least unless Eldar or Tau are present.

I've never thought about the game this way.

My mantra has always been 'buy the models that look awesome and make an army out of them'. It means I get sub par units (Tyranid Warriors, Carnifexes), awesome units (flyrants, Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, Gargoyles), and all things in between. But I don't care, because I'm just playing a game, and as long as my army looks awesome on the table, I'm happy.

This also led me to finding Infinity, which I'm extremely happy about.

 Harriticus wrote:
Warhammer 40,000 is probably the least militarily realistic mini war game out there. If you want realism you came to the wrong place. The Chainswords and Wolf cavalry should have been the first hints.

Once again, the point is missed. Yes, the universe is unrealistic by our standards. But they are still humans. And as such it is quite possible to place oneself on the battlefield in relation to your own troops. I don't want to flame here, but this misses the mark. I'm talking about integrating your ideas with the models. How would they work if they were actually alive and moving?

Yes they are toys. But aren't we, as hobbyists, trying to bring them to life?

 Darkstar2033 wrote:
Yes they are toys. But aren't we, as hobbyists, trying to bring them to life?

Depends what you mean by that. Bringing 40k to life is about imagining the most over the top Michael Bay movie you could ever think of, and throw in dashes of other over the top sci fi movies. It's not about being realistic. The superhumans with too many organs and an unfeasibly solid ribcage firing 0.75cal missiles from their submachine guns while fighting in wars and winning while being outnumbered tens of thousands to one being the posterboys of the game should explain that.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Darkstar2033 wrote:
Yes they are toys. But aren't we, as hobbyists, trying to bring them to life?

Depends what you mean by that. Bringing 40k to life is about imagining the most over the top Michael Bay movie you could ever think of, and throw in dashes of other over the top sci fi movies. It's not about being realistic. The superhumans with too many organs and an unfeasibly solid ribcage firing 0.75cal missiles from their submachine guns while fighting in wars and winning while being outnumbered tens of thousands to one being the posterboys of the game should explain that.

You're also operating within the limits of what may be "reasonable" in terms of technology. Why not step away from those kinds of mental restrictions and simply place yourself there, as an eight foot tall superhuman with too many organs firing .75 cal. . blah blah blah. Once again, I don't want to flame, I just want to dig a bit deeper.

Do you identify with your hobby, or do you do it because you like the models, painting and rolling dice? (NOT MEANT AS INSULT, SERIOUS QUESTION!)

I, for one, choose to actively engage in the mindset of "guardsman" and play my games accordingly.

Keep it going! I wanna know more about these ideas!

What you think as a guardsman is irrelevant, as you do what your commander says (you the player). I'm sure a guardsman is thinking the entire time "holy crap im going to die! emperor help me!" but hes being ordered (by you) to certain death, and so he must march into it.

Its because of this sometimes I like to think that I'm a commander orbiting above the battlefield sending out orders to the ground. In which case each individual human life is irrelevant, as they are just pawns in a game of chess. Much better than being blown to pieces every game!

seanm222 wrote:
What you think as a guardsman is irrelevant, as you do what your commander says (you the player). I'm sure a guardsman is thinking the entire time "holy crap im going to die! emperor help me!" but hes being ordered (by you) to certain death, and so he must march into it.

Its because of this sometimes I like to think that I'm a commander orbiting above the battlefield sending out orders to the ground. In which case each individual human life is irrelevant, as they are just pawns in a game of chess. Much better than being blown to pieces every game!

To your first statement: Not true. I respond to threats on the battlefield as they appear, and how I feel a commander, as you say, would indeed respond. The fact of the matter is I don't feel that way about my own troops. I want to cast myself among them, as the company commander or regimental commander perhaps. Therefore, I have a certain "empathy" for what is going on. Yes they have to do my bidding, but I prefer a more personal perspective.
Two different perspectives as to how one plays.