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.

 Matthew wrote:
I love how 40K is right now. Only problem I have is balance betweeb shooting and assault and balance between different armies, ptherwise I see no problems.
Change my view?

You will notice with 40k that the negative people (as in people who aren't happy with the state of the game) will generally be louder on the internet. This is arguably the same for most things with the internet. People yelling about every little thing they hate can cloud the waters.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only

I think you are in the wrong universe man, If it doesn't do combat, it doesn't belong in 40K just like tau.

Or perhaps people can realize that sword-fighting should not be a thing when every faction has weapons that eclipse nukes.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I think you are in the wrong universe man, If it doesn't do combat, it doesn't belong in 40K just like tau.

While CC is an important and integral part of 40k, that doesn't mean that a faction like the Tau hasn't got a right to exist in its own right, both lore wise as a faction that does things differently, and in the way they play on the board - they offer a player a more ranged focused playstyle, even more so than IG.

Even so, if Kroot were any good, they'd have some degree of CC potential, and they still have to interact with CC focused armies in melee. The issue with Tau armies is their balance, not whether they belong in 40k or not.

 Verviedi wrote:
Or perhaps people can realize that sword-fighting should not be a thing when every faction has weapons that eclipse nukes.

Well, melee combat seems to work well for a lot of factions. Gun does not always beat spear, especially Power Fielded Spears

Also not every faction has Capital or Exterminatus grade weaponry, and among the ones that do, not many of them are willing to use it all the time, especially when it inevitably results in the loss of strategic value.

As long as you have a group of like-minded reasonable players, 40K is ok and fun. It could be better, but if the communication is clear with the people you play against, then yes it is fine.

This issues come when players take advantages of the rules bloat and basically unlimited options with little to no concern for others. Yes GW should tighten that up, but the players have some responsibility too.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only

I think you are in the wrong universe man, If it doesn't do combat, it doesn't belong in 40K just like tau.

Or perhaps people can realize that sword-fighting should not be a thing when every faction has weapons that eclipse nukes.

I think you should perhaps realise 40k is a fantasy setting that just happens to take place in the future...

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Question - which army/armies do you play?

He plays SW

Ruin wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only

I think you are in the wrong universe man, If it doesn't do combat, it doesn't belong in 40K just like tau.

Or perhaps people can realize that sword-fighting should not be a thing when every faction has weapons that eclipse nukes.

I think you should perhaps realise 40k is a fantasy setting that just happens to take place in the future...

Very true, but it's still idiotic that any ground battles occur at all. We have spaceships and nuclear weapons.
If I were to make a faction, they would have entirely robotic ground forces, focus mainly on air superiority, and deploy nuclear bombardment against threats like Nids instead of lining up their dudes to shoot at them.
-Edit- I withdraw this point, ground battles are a necessity sometimes, but not all the time.

 Verviedi wrote:

Very true, but it's still idiotic that any ground battles occur at all. We have spaceships and nuclear weapons.
If I were to make a faction, they would have entirely robotic ground forces, focus mainly on air superiority, and deploy nuclear bombardment against threats like Nids instead of lining up their dudes to shoot at them.

Such a policy of warfare would cost factions like the IoM too much on a strategic level - their planets still need to function and produce resources and manpower after a successful defence, hence why they don't go all out and use ground forces to get most of the legwork done. It's why Exterminatus is only used and authorised when it has been deemed that there is zero hope of saving a world from falling into enemy hands.

 Matthew wrote:
Change my view?

40k fails miserably at several different points of basic game design:

1) Balance is terrible. Power creep, internal balance, external balance, it's all a problem.

2) The rules are a bloated mess. GW's design policy is all about having every unit get tons of special snowflake rules, on top of a massive core rulebook. And yet 40k strategy is pretty shallow, with little more than basic execution of your army's strategy and limited opportunity for move vs. counter-move planning. So all of these extra rules make the game harder to learn and vastly increase the opportunity for rule arguments, but they don't make the game more interesting.

3) The rules have no overall design plan. Nobody at GW seems to know what kind of game 40k is supposed to be. Is it a skirmish-scale game focused on the heroes? An army-scale game full of titans and aircraft and orbital bombardments? These are completely incompatible design concepts, yet GW's apparent answer to the question is "all of the above". So we have rules for determining exactly what kind of power weapon a tactical marine sergeant is armed with in the same game as a Warlord titan that can annihilate the entire unit with a single shot. And, where good games improve with every edition because the designers have a goal in mind that they're working towards, 40k keeps getting new editions where the rules change for the sake of change but the game doesn't really improve.

4) Randomness replaces player decisions far too often. Random warlord traits, random mission objectives, etc. GW consistently takes control away from the players and replaces it with rolling on a random table to see what you get. This is fine if you're a small child playing one of those "roll a die to see how many spaces you move" games on the back of a cereal box, since you have the same 50/50 chance of winning as your parent. It's unacceptable in a game where adults pay hundreds to thousands of dollars and invest countless hours in modeling and painting.

5) The rules are unclear and frequently impossible to understand. GW believes, contrary to modern game design principles, that the rules are just a general guide and you shouldn't worry too much about following them precisely. This means they don't pay enough attention to writing clear and unambiguous rules, with the inevitable result of constant arguments about what the rules are supposed to be. Even after a massive FAQ, which directly contradicts the printed rules in multiple places, there are still arguments over how the game is supposed to work.

 Verviedi wrote:

Ruin wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only

I think you are in the wrong universe man, If it doesn't do combat, it doesn't belong in 40K just like tau.

Or perhaps people can realize that sword-fighting should not be a thing when every faction has weapons that eclipse nukes.

I think you should perhaps realise 40k is a fantasy setting that just happens to take place in the future...

Very true, but it's still idiotic that any ground battles occur at all. We have spaceships and nuclear weapons.
If I were to make a faction, they would have entirely robotic ground forces, focus mainly on air superiority, and deploy nuclear bombardment against threats like Nids instead of lining up their dudes to shoot at them.

You sir, do not understand war at all.

Of course I don't. Neither does the entirety of GW's team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

Very true, but it's still idiotic that any ground battles occur at all. We have spaceships and nuclear weapons.
If I were to make a faction, they would have entirely robotic ground forces, focus mainly on air superiority, and deploy nuclear bombardment against threats like Nids instead of lining up their dudes to shoot at them.

Such a policy of warfare would cost factions like the IoM too much on a strategic level - their planets still need to function and produce resources and manpower after a successful defence, hence why they don't go all out and use ground forces to get most of the legwork done. It's why Exterminatus is only used and authorised when it has been deemed that there is zero hope of saving a world from falling into enemy hands.

Irrelevant. Planets are big enough to survive a nuking of enemy ground forces, and the Imperium frequently proves that that don't give a gak about the welfare of the citizens.

 koooaei wrote:
In all honesty, close combat was the thing that caught my eye with 40k dow in the first place.

I can't exhault this post enough. I picked up Space Mutts and Nids for that very reason. Who wants to hide their beautifully painted models under terrain in the corner, I want to see it charging across the battlefield.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only

I think you are in the wrong universe man, If it doesn't do combat, it doesn't belong in 40K just like tau.

I am in the right universe, happily not fighting in melee by sitting back and making it rain arty shells, or stormtroopers.

 Verviedi wrote:
Irrelevant. Planets are big enough to survive a nuking of enemy ground forces, and the Imperium frequently proves that that don't give a gak about the welfare of the citizens.

It's relevant when vital resources are being pumped through the planet's veins, literally in terms of something as important as Promethium. Other resources range from Manufactorums to ancient relics like Warlord Titans, which absolutely cannot afford to be lost. Troops and tanks can be expended much more easily, however.

By your logic, Armageddon and Cadia should have been reduced to nothing but barren rock by now, and the Imperium certainly has the power to do so. Bombing the enemy from a safe distance does not always result in victory. In fact, it can harm you a lot more than facing an Ork, Chaos or Tyranid invasion head on.

In addition, the Imperium relies on manpower - it's its strongest currency by far, and one of the primary reasons it's held up for so long. It may not care how that manpower is treated, but it will not unnecessarily waste them. In the words of Lord General Castor on his responsibility for killing thousands of Guardsmen under his command in an Exterminatus he forwarded "a Guardsman's life is to die. My job has always been to send them to places where they can die. I'm not afraid to spend them, but I will never waste them"

Warlord Titans can be built or rebuilt (source: Space Marine). Don't even get me started on the impracticality of bidepal war machines. Quadrepidal is far more stable.
If the Imperium were intelligent, they would have hit the landing areas and staging grounds of the enemy, and sent mass naval assets to deal with enemy spacecraft, not allowing the enemy to spread beyond their initial landing zones.
I fully admit the destruction of factory and resource infrastructure is unfortunate, but destroying some factories with a nuke is better than letting the whole planet fall.

 General Annoyance wrote:
It's relevant when vital resources are being pumped through the planet's veins, literally in terms of something as important as Promethium. Other resources range from Manufactorums to ancient relics like Warlord Titans, which absolutely cannot afford to be lost. Troops and tanks can be expended much more easily, however.

By your logic, Armageddon and Cadia should have been reduced to nothing but barren rock by now, and the Imperium certainly has the power to do so. Bombing the enemy from a safe distance does not always result in victory. In fact, it can harm you a lot more than facing an Ork, Chaos or Tyranid invasion head on.

And, again, the planet itself will survive the use of nuclear weapons. Remember, there are strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons are the high-yield warheads designed to destroy entire cities, tactical nuclear weapons are smaller and aimed at destroying battlefield targets. An air burst tactical nuke over a company of infantry will kill all of them with a single shot while leaving the planet itself unharmed. On a planet like Armageddon, where the entire planet outside of the key strategic targets is empty wasteland, the Imperium should have won effortlessly with nuclear weapons. Any time the orks assembled a meaningful force they should have been targeted with tactical nuclear weapons and annihilated, with conventional air strikes and artillery to finish off any survivors. Mass human/xenos wave attacks do not work against modern weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
It's relevant when vital resources are being pumped through the planet's veins, literally in terms of something as important as Promethium. Other resources range from Manufactorums to ancient relics like Warlord Titans, which absolutely cannot afford to be lost. Troops and tanks can be expended much more easily, however.

By your logic, Armageddon and Cadia should have been reduced to nothing but barren rock by now, and the Imperium certainly has the power to do so. Bombing the enemy from a safe distance does not always result in victory. In fact, it can harm you a lot more than facing an Ork, Chaos or Tyranid invasion head on.

And, again, the planet itself will survive the use of nuclear weapons. Remember, there are strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons are the high-yield warheads designed to destroy entire cities, tactical nuclear weapons are smaller and aimed at destroying battlefield targets. An air burst tactical nuke over a company of infantry will kill all of them with a single shot while leaving the planet itself unharmed. On a planet like Armageddon, where the entire planet outside of the key strategic targets is empty wasteland, the Imperium should have won effortlessly with nuclear weapons. Any time the orks assembled a meaningful force they should have been targeted with tactical nuclear weapons and annihilated, with conventional air strikes and artillery to finish off any survivors. Mass human/xenos wave attacks do not work against modern weapons.

But what about all the ork ships contending atmospheric superiority? And the honor of the imperial forces? (I say this because imperil arrogance is a hinderence as they would prefer to pay in blood then give ground to xenos even if its scorched and logistically useless, no source just observation from my time in the hobby)

Also the rarity of these weapons, and the Damn paper work that would come with it!

Verviedi wrote:Warlord Titans can be built or rebuilt (source: Space Marine).

Incorrect - the whole reason the Ultramarine strike force was sent to Graia in Space Marine was because the deployment of Capital Weaponry or Exterminatus was not an acceptable parameter of loss; ancient relics like Warlord Titans cannot simply be repaired or constructed, or else there would be a lot more of them. Watch the introduction again:

I fully admit the destruction of factory and resource infrastructure is unfortunate, but destroying some factories with a nuke is better than letting the whole planet fall.

Again, see above - the Imperium cannot afford such loss if it is preventable by staging a ground war, which it can absolutely afford to do 9 times out of 10.

Peregrine wrote:And, again, the planet itself will survive the use of nuclear weapons. Remember, there are strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons are the high-yield warheads designed to destroy entire cities, tactical nuclear weapons are smaller and aimed at destroying battlefield targets. An air burst tactical nuke over a company of infantry will kill all of them with a single shot while leaving the planet itself unharmed. On a planet like Armageddon, where the entire planet outside of the key strategic targets is empty wasteland, the Imperium should have won effortlessly with nuclear weapons. Any time the orks assembled a meaningful force they should have been targeted with tactical nuclear weapons and annihilated, with conventional air strikes and artillery to finish off any survivors. Mass human/xenos wave attacks do not work against modern weapons.

Indeed, tactical nuclear weapons can be and are a possibility. The Imperium refers to them as Ordnance Extremis, and I believe such weaponry was deployed on Armageddon. However, given that such weaponry was in the hands of an incopetent traitor (Governor Von Strab) it was very ineffective and cost thousands of lives; this was a deliberate consequence though obviously - had they been used properly, and with intent to wipe out the Orks, the Second War for Armageddon might have gone more smoothly.

But of course, Ordnance may not always be available, nor will it always be the logical decision, depending on the environment you're fighting in and the opponent you're up against. And, if used incorrectly, it'll cost more than what can be replaced with expendable tanks and bodies from the Imperial Guard

 General Annoyance wrote:

Verviedi wrote:Warlord Titans can be built or rebuilt (source: Space Marine).

Incorrect - the whole reason the Ultramarine strike force was sent to Graia in Space Marine was because the deployment of Capital Weaponry or Exterminatus was not an acceptable parameter of loss; ancient relics like Warlord Titans cannot simply be repaired or constructed, or else there would be a lot more of them. Watch the introduction again:

Please note that it says Industrial Output, Warlord Titan. That wouldn't be the case if the facility did not manufacture Warlord Titans.

Again, see above - the Imperium cannot afford such loss if it is preventable by staging a ground war, which it can absolutely afford to do 9 times out of 10.

Are you saying that the loss of one random factory on one of the thousands of forge worlds would cripple an empire of a million worlds?

Indeed, tactical nuclear weapons can be and are a possibility. The Imperium refers to them as Ordnance Extremis, and I believe such weaponry was deployed on Armageddon. However, given that such weaponry was in the hands of an incopetent traitor (Governor Von Strab) it was very ineffective and cost thousands of lives; this was a deliberate consequence though obviously - had they been used properly, and with intent to wipe out the Orks, the Second War for Armageddon might have gone more smoothly.

But of course, Ordnance may not always be available, nor will it always be the logical decision, depending on the environment you're fighting in and the opponent you're up against. And, if used incorrectly, it'll cost more than what can be replaced with expendable tanks and bodies from the Imperial Guard

How the hell do you use a nuke incorrectly? Point at enemy landing zone, launch, detonate. If this doesn't work, deploy more nukes. And Von Strab is a singular case that's designed as a cheap ploy to prevent readers from wondering "hey, why aren't we nuking gak?"

 Verviedi wrote:

Please note that it says Industrial Output, Warlord Titan. That wouldn't be the case if the facility did not manufacture Warlord Titans.

It may only have the ability to maintain a Warlord with the facilities available. Whether it can only do that or build them from scratch, there aren't many worlds like it; losing such a facility like Manufactorum Ajakis could have long and unforeseen consequences.

Are you saying that the loss of one random factory on one of the thousands of forge worlds would cripple an empire of a million worlds?

Not necessarily, but it may not just be one Manufactorum you end up destroying in the collateral damage.

How the hell do you use a nuke incorrectly? Point at enemy landing zone, launch, detonate. If this doesn't work, deploy more nukes. And Von Strab is a singular case that's designed as a cheap ploy to prevent readers from wondering "hey, why aren't we nuking gak?"

Well Trump has been elected, I'm sure we'll find out how you use a nuclear weapon incorrectly soon enough

And yes, Von Strab is a singular case, as I noted by saying that this was obviously deliberate. Fact is Imperial worlds use such weaponry all the time, but often it's just not enough against an entire invasion of Orks or Tyranids, and it is almost always a bureaucratic uphill battle as someone needs to be on hand to authorise their use.

 Toastedandy wrote:
But what about all the ork ships contending atmospheric superiority?

Nuclear artillery, tanks with nuclear shells, nuclear cruise missiles, etc. There are plenty of ways to deliver nuclear weapons, and if none of them work because the enemy has superiority everywhere then you've lost the battle anyway.

And the honor of the imperial forces?

And this is what it comes down to: everyone in 40k uses stupid tactics because of "honor".

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

Please note that it says Industrial Output, Warlord Titan. That wouldn't be the case if the facility did not manufacture Warlord Titans.

It may only have the ability to maintain a Warlord with the facilities available. Whether it can only do that or build them from scratch, there aren't many worlds like it; losing such a facility like Manufactorum Ajakis could have long and unforeseen consequences.

Are you saying that the loss of one random factory on one of the thousands of forge worlds would cripple an empire of a million worlds?

Not necessarily, but it may not just be one Manufactorum you end up destroying in the collateral damage.

How the hell do you use a nuke incorrectly? Point at enemy landing zone, launch, detonate. If this doesn't work, deploy more nukes. And Von Strab is a singular case that's designed as a cheap ploy to prevent readers from wondering "hey, why aren't we nuking gak?"

Well Trump has been elected, I'm sure we'll find out how you use a nuclear weapon incorrectly soon enough

And yes, Von Strab is a singular case, as I noted by saying that this was obviously deliberate. Fact is Imperial worlds use such weaponry all the time, but often it's just not enough against an entire invasion of Orks or Tyranids, and it is almost always a bureaucratic uphill battle as someone needs to be on hand to authorise their use.

Warlords can be built... I believe but the facilities capable are rare and are slow.
There very valuable.

Emperor class I believe are lost class to produce

 General Annoyance wrote:

It may only have the ability to maintain a Warlord with the facilities available. Whether it can only do that or build them from scratch, there aren't many worlds like it; losing such a facility like Manufactorum Ajakis could have long and unforeseen consequences.

And by not many, you mean thousands, seeing as almost every forge world has a Titan Legion with multiple Warlords.

Not necessarily, but it may not just be one Manufactorum you end up destroying in the collateral damage.

According to the map, Manufactorum Ajakis is the size of a large city.

Well Trump has been elected, I'm sure we'll find out how you use a nuclear weapon incorrectly soon enough

This is not constructive.

And yes, Von Strab is a singular case, as I noted by saying that this was obviously deliberate. Fact is Imperial worlds use such weaponry all the time, but often it's just not enough against an entire invasion of Orks or Tyranids, and it is almost always a bureaucratic uphill battle as someone needs to be on hand to authorise their use.

How so? Most battles for entire planets in 40k involve less soldiers than several WW2 Eastern Front battles. Tyranids generally stage and land in one place, and you can't exactly intercept a missile travelling at Mach 15 with their tech. Same with Orks. Nuke the landed Roks, done.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
But what about all the ork ships contending atmospheric superiority?

Nuclear artillery, tanks with nuclear shells, nuclear cruise missiles, etc. There are plenty of ways to deliver nuclear weapons, and if none of them work because the enemy has superiority everywhere then you've lost the battle anyway.

How readily available, logistically viable and effective are these hypothetical 40k nukes?

And the honor of the imperial forces?

And this is what it comes down to: everyone in 40k uses stupid tactics because of "honor".

 Toastedandy wrote:
How readily available, logistically viable and effective are these hypothetical 40k nukes?

Presumably at least as effective as real-world weapons from 50 years ago.

 Verviedi wrote:

And by not many, you mean thousands, seeing as almost every forge world has a Titan Legion with multiple Warlords.

Thousands in proportion to millions of worlds, if we are to believe the scale of the IoM. That would only magnify the loss of such a major world though.

According to the map, Manufactorum Ajakis is the size of a large city.

And it was swarming with Orks. To nuke or not to nuke is the question now.

This is not constructive.

It wasn't meant to be. Are we not allowed to make discussions a little friendlier here by slipping in a joke or two?

How so? Most battles for entire planets in 40k involve less soldiers than several WW2 Eastern Front battles. Tyranids generally stage and land in one place, and you can't exactly intercept a missile travelling at Mach 15 with their tech. Same with Orks. Nuke the landed Roks, done.

Source for that claim that planetary wars use less soldiers than a WW2 battlefront?

And Tyranids will attack from all directions - their invasions only discriminate when there is a higher concentration of biomass in a given area.

Nuke the landed Roks, and more will take their place. Although I guess you at least thin out the invasion a bit more than just throwing men at it.

I think the Imperium should use Ordnance Extremis more than it does already, but we have to draw a line somewhere for ground battles to occur. Even if 9 times out of 10 the logical decision is to push a button and send warheads flying off towards the enemy, there will be that 1 time where such an option is either not viable or not logical.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
How readily available, logistically viable and effective are these hypothetical 40k nukes?

Presumably at least as effective as real-world weapons from 50 years ago.

Nah man, gotta be more grim dark than cold war bombs.

 Toastedandy wrote:


Nah man, gotta be more grim dark than cold war bombs.

The Imperium don't just have nuclear grade weapons; lack of any human ethics means they use a whole bunch of biological and chemical weapons too, similar to those used on Armageddon and Tallarn.

Close combat is fun. I don't think anything more needs to be said about it.

...

Okay, I'll add more.

For a lot of people, close combat is fun. Some people prefer shooting, and that is fine-they have factions like Guard, or Tau, or certain builds within Eldar or SM or a bunch of other factions. But for a lot of people, close combat is fun, so since this is a game, close combat should definitely stay.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Thousands in proportion to millions of worlds, if we are to believe the scale of the IoM. That would only magnify the loss of such a major world though.

Graia is hardly a major world, as only a single squad of Marines was sent to reclaim it. If it were important, it would be hit with multiple companies or chapters, like Armageddon was.

And it was swarming with Orks. To nuke or not to nuke is the question now.

Nuke it.

It wasn't meant to be. Are we not allowed to make discussions a little friendlier here by slipping in a joke or two?

Yes, when your joke is funny. "Codex: Peregrine Owns Your Wallet" was something funny that was posted today. A Trump joke is very much not funny. It's like making a 9/11 joke in 2002.

Source for that claim that planetary wars use less soldiers than a WW2 battlefront?

Third War For Armageddon, only about 249 Guard regiments deployed. That's 600,000 people give or take, assuming my math is right.

And Tyranids will attack from all directions - their invasions only discriminate when there is a higher concentration of biomass in a given area.

Tyranids have a tendency to stage and form swarms in one location before attacking. Source: Battle of Tarsis Ultra.

Nuke the landed Roks, and more will take their place. Although I guess you at least thin out the invasion a bit more than just throwing men at it.

The Imperium has more nukes than the Orks have Roks.

I think the Imperium should use Ordnance Extremis more than it does already, but we have to draw a line somewhere for ground battles to occur. Even if 9 times out of 10 the logical decision is to push a button and send warheads flying off towards the enemy, there will be that 1 time where such an option is either not viable or not logical.

Yes, there are some cases where it is not viable. However, this doesn't excuse a near complete lack of using nukes in the background.