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.

Its just that every game I played in 8th my marines take like 80 casualties. Spread that over three years and ive lost like 1000s of black templars. All of these battles were cannon to me. But the lore saying that there is only some 1000 dudes in my chapter at any given time, while there are also 100s of other black templar players out there participating in the galactic conflict that is 40k. There has to be alot more marines than the lore says for it to make sense.

This is the disconnect between game and the lore that I mean.

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

I don't care for bolter porn, and the massive focus on anything marine related gets on my nerves, so I really enjoy watching the power armoured chimps being gunned down by Kabalites with splinter rifles.

Martel732 wrote:
Marines do not feel elite at all compared to bullgryns, grotesques, and Wulfen, all of whom have the coveted invuln save vs all the super heavies and demon primarchs.

Well that's...probably because they're not elite compared to those units? Those units are all more elite than marines.

....Well, except that wulfen only get invuln save from a standard piece of marine wargear that you can get on MEQ and TEQ units. Unless they have something besides storm shields for invulns?

Do vanvets feel elite then? They have 3++ saves.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Grey40k wrote:

Tygre wrote:
One of the most unrealistic things; that both sides are, generally, even in power. If you are the weaker force you screwed up; if the enemy is the weaker force they screwed up; if both sides are on equal footing then both sides screwed up.

Against Space Marines you cannot be everywhere. Disperse to cover a wider area and your command and control is picked off. If you mass; well enjoy the orbital bombardment. Heads I win tales you lose.

That's just buying the SM propaganda. If they were so good, why was the human empire in decadence and close to defeat for so many years?

You mean, "How has humanity survived the continued onslaught of xenos and chaos scum?" Space Marines!

Why aren't armies in the real world all special forces?

It's a sarcastic comment illustrating how easy it is to reverse the "why is the Imperium so close to defeat?" comment.

Of course all armies in the real world (or 40K) aren't special forces. I'll in no way disregard the vast contribution of the Imperial Navy, Guard, Sororitas, Mechanicum, etc. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

Wait, why doesn't it match up? That's what the lore-marines deploy too, no?

Martel732 wrote:
So if you can think of that, why can't GW?

I mean, I didn't, GW did when they wrote Epic.

But it's 2020: Command and control, maneuver, simulation, and restrictive rules are out. Wombo combos, pseudo-deckbuilding, netlisting, and permissive rules are in. You can't make Marines feel like a better-coordinated force just by letting them shoot twice or giving them bonus AP. You can't simulate attacks on infrastructure or hit-and-run strikes with a dull, predictable, line-up-your-armies-and-shoot ITC mission set. And you can't make Marines feel elite and durable when every buff revolves around lethality, everything is in range on turn 1, and people don't want to scale back the lethality because it makes the (overcomplicated) games take longer.

I really like the Apocalypse ruleset, but when you compare it to Epic it's clear how game design has changed.

Gitdakka wrote:
Its just that every game I played in 8th my marines take like 80 casualties. Spread that over three years and ive lost like 1000s of black templars. All of these battles were cannon to me. But the lore saying that there is only some 1000 dudes in my chapter at any given time, while there are also 100s of other black templar players out there participating in the galactic conflict that is 40k. There has to be alot more marines than the lore says for it to make sense.

This is the disconnect between game and the lore that I mean.

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

Realistically, casualties are not dead. Technically, anyone injured is a casualty, but for game purposes, it is anyone rendered unable to fight.

Fortunately, Astartes are super-tough and have a really good health plan. They will be back in action soon.

I guess that's one way to look at it. The other way is that GW is really bad at math.

 alextroy wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
Its just that every game I played in 8th my marines take like 80 casualties. Spread that over three years and ive lost like 1000s of black templars. All of these battles were cannon to me. But the lore saying that there is only some 1000 dudes in my chapter at any given time, while there are also 100s of other black templar players out there participating in the galactic conflict that is 40k. There has to be alot more marines than the lore says for it to make sense.

This is the disconnect between game and the lore that I mean.

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

Realistically, casualties are not dead. Technically, anyone injured is a casualty, but for game purposes, it is anyone rendered unable to fight.

Fortunately, Astartes are super-tough and have a really good health plan. They will be back in action soon.

Surely that depends on the weapon and the outcome?

If the SMs lose, then it's unlikely they'll be able to evacuate their wounded, so even if some of the casualties aren't actually dead, the enemy will have ample opportunity to capture them, finish them off or (in the case of nids) devour them entirely.

Then have to consider the weapon that inflicted the casualty. Pretty sure a lot of Necron weapons reduce their targets to atoms, DE have ones that inflict some pretty horrific deaths, to the point where any Astartes who survives them would probably really wish he hadn't. You get the idea.

My point is, even if casualties don't necessarily represent lethal injuries, it seems like a lot of them are going to be lethal either because of the weapon that inflicted the injury or because the SMs weren't able to hold their ground to actually evacuate the wounded. And somehow I doubt that DE, Necrons, Chaos etc. will obligingly wait whilst the SM version of the Red Cross administer medical treatment.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

Wait, why doesn't it match up? That's what the lore-marines deploy too, no?

I mean space marines fighting outright battles does not make sense in the fluff with their few numbers spread so thinly. With so few of them they should only do skirmishes, like 5 marines infiltrating a ship and killing everyone, or other similar commando missions. Why use marines as a mechanized force when IG could do the same? Or why put 100 marines in a blob like all those artworks when a single artillery barrage or bombing run would wipe them out?

Martel732 wrote:
I guess that's one way to look at it. The other way is that GW is really bad at math.

Funny!

Martel732 wrote:
In spite of marines, perhaps.

Also funny.

The force is strong with this one:

 catbarf wrote:

Epic made Marines work. The problem isn't scale, it's a lack of modeling of the elements that make Marines work in the fluff. There's no ambush scenario in 40K when you just line up on opposite sides of the board. There's no modeling of Marines' lightning-fast operational tempo, nor their coordination. There are rarely 'sudden death' style objectives where a force of Marines can get in, do what they need to do, and get out without engaging the bulk of the enemy forces.

Marines in Epic feel like proper special forces. They're fast, reliable, and can concentrate a ton of power into a small area (this is a hugely important factor- ranges in Epic are a lot shorter, so there's a lot less 'I shoot my entire army at this unit'). What Marines in Epic don't have is unlimited staying power if the enemy can concentrate artillery and superheavies (let alone Titans) against them.

The board is the same size as 40K, but the weapon ranges are far shorter, and units are able to move a lot more relative to their range. An army that can reliably activate (like Marines) can run circles around less-reliable armies, activating to get in, smash a key unit or objective, and get out before the response arrives. Maneuver actually matters. Morale matters too- so if Marines get in and inflict a decent amount of attrition on their targets, it dramatically reduces the amount of return fire they have to contend with.

The utter lack of these mechanics in 40K turns Marines into just bigger Guardsmen. And they die against superheavies and artillery like Guardsmen all the same.

 catbarf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So if you can think of that, why can't GW?

I mean, I didn't, GW did when they wrote Epic.

But it's 2020: Command and control, maneuver, simulation, and restrictive rules are out. Wombo combos, pseudo-deckbuilding, netlisting, and permissive rules are in. You can't make Marines feel like a better-coordinated force just by letting them shoot twice or giving them bonus AP. You can't simulate attacks on infrastructure or hit-and-run strikes with a dull, predictable, line-up-your-armies-and-shoot ITC mission set. And you can't make Marines feel elite and durable when every buff revolves around lethality, everything is in range on turn 1, and people don't want to scale back the lethality because it makes the (overcomplicated) games take longer.

I really like the Apocalypse ruleset, but when you compare it to Epic it's clear how game design has changed.

Exalted!

Gitdakka wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

Wait, why doesn't it match up? That's what the lore-marines deploy too, no?

I mean space marines fighting outright battles does not make sense in the fluff with their few numbers spread so thinly. With so few of them they should only do skirmishes, like 5 marines infiltrating a ship and killing everyone, or other similar commando missions. Why use marines as a mechanized force when IG could do the same? Or why put 100 marines in a blob like all those artworks when a single artillery barrage or bombing run would wipe them out?

A lot of the time the Space Marines are the first responders to a conflict, and they may not have time to wait for the Guard for support. Mechanized Space Marines would work the same as the five-man kill team except on a larger scale, the idea is that they're still concentrating force against an unprepared/unsupported foe in a small area of conflict, and then continuing on before retaliation can meet them, or airlifting out. I also imagine that they'd use their armored formations in feints trying to draw out the opponent for orbital bombardment.

As for the "blob of marines", I imagine those are the big drops into key portions of a larger battle. The sort of massed shock-drops onto HQ formations that will be casualty-heavy but can determine the fate of the conflict.

Dreadnoughts are an oddball, as they're too slow to keep up with the tanks. But they can be podded, airlifted via Storm Raven, and are pretty useful in urban combat with their walker status and assault capability.

I also like the idea that Space Marine tanks are built for long deployments and high penetration. They sport Lascannons for AT duty rather than ammunition-heavy Battlecannons, and at least the classic marine tanks used ammunition commonly found among IG arsenals, bolter and Heavy Bolter rounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
Its just that every game I played in 8th my marines take like 80 casualties. Spread that over three years and ive lost like 1000s of black templars. All of these battles were cannon to me. But the lore saying that there is only some 1000 dudes in my chapter at any given time, while there are also 100s of other black templar players out there participating in the galactic conflict that is 40k. There has to be alot more marines than the lore says for it to make sense.

This is the disconnect between game and the lore that I mean.

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

Realistically, casualties are not dead. Technically, anyone injured is a casualty, but for game purposes, it is anyone rendered unable to fight.

Fortunately, Astartes are super-tough and have a really good health plan. They will be back in action soon.

Surely that depends on the weapon and the outcome?

If the SMs lose, then it's unlikely they'll be able to evacuate their wounded, so even if some of the casualties aren't actually dead, the enemy will have ample opportunity to capture them, finish them off or (in the case of nids) devour them entirely.

Then have to consider the weapon that inflicted the casualty. Pretty sure a lot of Necron weapons reduce their targets to atoms, DE have ones that inflict some pretty horrific deaths, to the point where any Astartes who survives them would probably really wish he hadn't. You get the idea.

My point is, even if casualties don't necessarily represent lethal injuries, it seems like a lot of them are going to be lethal either because of the weapon that inflicted the injury or because the SMs weren't able to hold their ground to actually evacuate the wounded. And somehow I doubt that DE, Necrons, Chaos etc. will obligingly wait whilst the SM version of the Red Cross administer medical treatment.

Better win then!

Also, I tend to think the Scout company is less regulated in terms of size, more meat for the grinder! But seriously, the old forehead stud was for every ten years of service, iirc. I imagine the attrition rate is pretty high even with the enhances biology, healing, bionics, etc.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:

I like how a table top classic marine army is organized with light tanks, drop pods, rhinos, dreadnoughs, marines in their tac, dev and assult variants. I's just weird that the lore does not match this in any way that makes sense

Wait, why doesn't it match up? That's what the lore-marines deploy too, no?

I mean space marines fighting outright battles does not make sense in the fluff with their few numbers spread so thinly. With so few of them they should only do skirmishes, like 5 marines infiltrating a ship and killing everyone, or other similar commando missions. Why use marines as a mechanized force when IG could do the same? Or why put 100 marines in a blob like all those artworks when a single artillery barrage or bombing run would wipe them out?

those art works are just that art don't take them too seriously as they're designed to be visually impressive more then anything.

Bit late getting into the thread (though it looks like most of what I missed is arguing about Marines), but in my opinion, 40k generally threw the baby out with the bathwater in the drive for simplification.

This "simpler" game, where everything's just on the datasheet and there's no need to flip around (except there totally is) is actually really hard to play. My opponents oftentimes forget rules to their own detriment - though sometimes to their advantage as well. The fact that this is so common means I likely do this myself; I try to be sharp with rules but they're so counterintuitive that it's difficult sometimes.

And yes, counterintuitive. Things like tanks not being able to fall back and shoot, or worse shooting while in combat (except the ones that can of course like the Baneblade). A Valdor Tank Hunter can fall back and shoot, despite being generally smaller than a Land Raider which cannot. Why? What abstraction is that? GW please.

Another example is charges: what does the charge roll represent? Does it represent the unit beginning its charge, but failing to reach the enemy in time? Why doesn't the unit move? That's counterintuitive.

Speaking of time, what's 40k's time step? And why is it so fethed up? Is it 6 seconds of combat? That makes sense, with tanks being able to fire roughly once every six seconds or so. Though some can fire twice, and overwatch infinite times. Maybe 40k's timestep is closer to 10 or 15 seconds, but then movement ranges are all out of whack...

I think the designers lost the thread (or alternatively deliberately let go of the thread) with regards to realism in the game. They didn't start by asking what scale of combat they wanted to model, they didn't start by trying to create coherent abstractions, they didn't start by trying to build the best wargame that reflects reality/the background they could.

They just took what they had in 7th and turned tanks into monstrous creatures, basically.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Bit late getting into the thread (though it looks like most of what I missed is arguing about Marines), but in my opinion, 40k generally threw the baby out with the bathwater in the drive for simplification.

This "simpler" game, where everything's just on the datasheet and there's no need to flip around (except there totally is) is actually really hard to play. My opponents oftentimes forget rules to their own detriment - though sometimes to their advantage as well. The fact that this is so common means I likely do this myself; I try to be sharp with rules but they're so counterintuitive that it's difficult sometimes.

And yes, counterintuitive. Things like tanks not being able to fall back and shoot, or worse shooting while in combat (except the ones that can of course like the Baneblade). A Valdor Tank Hunter can fall back and shoot, despite being generally smaller than a Land Raider which cannot. Why? What abstraction is that? GW please.

Another example is charges: what does the charge roll represent? Does it represent the unit beginning its charge, but failing to reach the enemy in time? Why doesn't the unit move? That's counterintuitive.

Speaking of time, what's 40k's time step? And why is it so fethed up? Is it 6 seconds of combat? That makes sense, with tanks being able to fire roughly once every six seconds or so. Though some can fire twice, and overwatch infinite times. Maybe 40k's timestep is closer to 10 or 15 seconds, but then movement ranges are all out of whack...

I think the designers lost the thread (or alternatively deliberately let go of the thread) with regards to realism in the game. They didn't start by asking what scale of combat they wanted to model, they didn't start by trying to create coherent abstractions, they didn't start by trying to build the best wargame that reflects reality/the background they could.

They just took what they had in 7th and turned tanks into monstrous creatures, basically.

I don't think the market really cares about realism in games anymore to be honest. A good example of this is Infinity vs. killteam. Locally we had people try to start gaming nights for both those games. Infinity never took off, however Killteam? It draws 12+ people regularly. Killteam is much more streamlined rule set. A lot of players just seem to prefer that.

Infinity is about to come out with a new edition that includes a mode with more streamlined rules. So even the designers of that game seem to understand where the market is.

That's because Kill Team uses 40k models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's because Kill Team uses 40k models.

I strongly disagree. I have tried demoing infinity several times. The complexity was a huge turn off for people. Vast majority of the people playing killteam locally are new to the hobby.

I taught people to play both games. Killteam is much easier for people to grasp and play. In the current climate of tabletop games that matters a lot in my experience.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's because Kill Team uses 40k models.

I strongly disagree. I have tried demoing infinity several times. The complexity was a huge turn off for people.

Gameplay complexity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the "realism"/verisimilitude problem. You can build a game that makes a lot more intuitive sense than 40k with fewer rules (ex. Bolt Action), or one that makes a lot more intuitive sense and has a lot more rules (ex. Infinity). The ease with which you can play the game doesn't need to have anything to do with how well it simulates what it's trying to simulate.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's because Kill Team uses 40k models.

I strongly disagree. I have tried demoing infinity several times. The complexity was a huge turn off for people.

Gameplay complexity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the "realism"/verisimilitude problem. You can build a game that makes a lot more intuitive sense than 40k with fewer rules (ex. Bolt Action), or one that makes a lot more intuitive sense and has a lot more rules (ex. Infinity). The ease with which you can play the game doesn't need to have anything to do with how well it simulates what it's trying to simulate.

Not necessarily, but my point is most people playing table top games now (including miniatures) don't really care about "realism". I personally think infinity does a better job of simulating a small scale firefight than killteam, but in my experience the players locally don't seem to care about that.

I like many aspects of Infinity but one immersion breaking thing for me is the idea you can spend all your actions on a single unit. You can wind up with units sacrificing their actions to make a super ninja for a turn. It's a little goofy, imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I like many aspects of Infinity but one immersion breaking thing for me is the idea you can spend all your actions on a single unit. You can wind up with units sacrificing their actions to make a super ninja for a turn. It's a little goofy, imo.

It's called "Rambo-ing" and I find it's nowhere near as present in the game or as effective as people who grumble about it after reading the rules seem to think. You can do it but going back to the realism angle if one guy tries to run into the covering fire of a whole enemy team he'll discover quite quickly that he's still just one guy with no more than three hitpoints (in extreme cases) and get shot full of holes. (It does work really well on new players who don't know how to counter it but complaining about it is kind of like hearing a 40k player complain that all superheavies are busted because they're so much bigger than anything he can take; yes, a Spartan is a big scary tank, but it's wildly inefficient and easily countered.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:
... but complaining about it is kind of like hearing a 40k player complain that all superheavies are busted because they're so much bigger than anything he can take; yes, a Spartan is a big scary tank, but it's wildly inefficient and easily countered.)

Spartan beats scissors, paper beats spartan.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

...my point is most people playing table top games now (including miniatures) don't really care about "realism". I personally think infinity does a better job of simulating a small scale firefight than killteam, but in my experience the players locally don't seem to care about that.

Except for everyone in this thread who does. And everyone else who might never have played a tabletop wargame but would benefit if everyday intuitions fed into actual gamelply, rather than needing to be checked and amended in the effort to "streamline" rules with counter-intuitive abstractions.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Bit late getting into the thread (though it looks like most of what I missed is arguing about Marines), but in my opinion, 40k generally threw the baby out with the bathwater in the drive for simplification.

This "simpler" game, where everything's just on the datasheet and there's no need to flip around (except there totally is) is actually really hard to play. My opponents oftentimes forget rules to their own detriment - though sometimes to their advantage as well. The fact that this is so common means I likely do this myself; I try to be sharp with rules but they're so counterintuitive that it's difficult sometimes.

And yes, counterintuitive. Things like tanks not being able to fall back and shoot, or worse shooting while in combat (except the ones that can of course like the Baneblade). A Valdor Tank Hunter can fall back and shoot, despite being generally smaller than a Land Raider which cannot. Why? What abstraction is that? GW please.

Another example is charges: what does the charge roll represent? Does it represent the unit beginning its charge, but failing to reach the enemy in time? Why doesn't the unit move? That's counterintuitive.

Speaking of time, what's 40k's time step? And why is it so fethed up? Is it 6 seconds of combat? That makes sense, with tanks being able to fire roughly once every six seconds or so. Though some can fire twice, and overwatch infinite times. Maybe 40k's timestep is closer to 10 or 15 seconds, but then movement ranges are all out of whack...

I think the designers lost the thread (or alternatively deliberately let go of the thread) with regards to realism in the game. They didn't start by asking what scale of combat they wanted to model, they didn't start by trying to create coherent abstractions, they didn't start by trying to build the best wargame that reflects reality/the background they could.

They just took what they had in 7th and turned tanks into monstrous creatures, basically.

Exalted. Thanks for the contribution.

For me it was the hypersonic jet fighter stuck on a 6x4 board.....

Games Workshop clearly want a more "board gamey" experience, for lack of a better term and one assumes they have done their research on this and from what I hear their current games are doing better than ever.

It's not what I want from the game personally, I definitely think there is room for both at least but I do believe that it is a deliberate move.

I think it is exactly what the poster above me says. Transition from simulation war game to board game.

Board games use the fluff to make it cooler but do not attempt to simulate at all.

As a returning player, I see the current 40k iteration following that approach more Than it did in its beginnings.

 jeff white wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

...my point is most people playing table top games now (including miniatures) don't really care about "realism". I personally think infinity does a better job of simulating a small scale firefight than killteam, but in my experience the players locally don't seem to care about that.

Except for everyone in this thread who does. And everyone else who might never have played a tabletop wargame but would benefit if everyday intuitions fed into actual gamelply, rather than needing to be checked and amended in the effort to "streamline" rules with counter-intuitive abstractions.

Yea the people on this thread care, but the results speak for themselves. GW is killing it right now with their less realistic streamlined ruleset. The average consumer doesn't seem to care or if they do it is a tertiary concern.

Another game that was doing well for awhile was warmahordes. Mk2 was a great game and I saw a lot of 40k players jump ship in 6th/7th to play it. Does warmahordes simulate actual combat well? Hell no. Did people seem to care at all in my experience? Nope.

I think the days of miniature games being war games simulating real world combat are basically over (except for historicals). The market has spoken and it wants the board game experience.

It's the end of the world and we're talking about realism and 40k ? There really isn't any as the game isn't elegant enough for it to make any realism claim.

I doubt it'll ever be realistic but the game is far too simple and the only way to add depth is to bloat it into a great unclean one of a rule set but not with depth but tacked on but just a bunch of bells and whistles.

As for this being a good thing because it's selling well. I'd like to see the numbers of units over just the cost going up and up and up to spur high profits. Doesn't mean they are really doing things right.

The only thing GW have done really well is survive and be ever present. At the end of the day, that doesn't say the system kicks butt people will buy into a poor system just to be sure they will be able to play at all.

Over all I like some other system mechanics far better but they are more niche as you can't find others willing to try them. Means nothing about the system being more wanted, it's simply for many places the only game in town and you can't under estimate how people go with the crowd as opposed to blaze a new path.

Saying no one cares about realism is pretty daft, I could care all day long and actually do but if everyone is just going to play a more meh system because everyone has it, doesn't really matter does it ?

Simpler is easier for everyone and you need to put in more thought for a realistic system and many warhammer players don't even put that much thought into an army list, let alone to learn a more complex system like infinity can prove to be for example.

All the results say is easier is easier and will be more popular on a base level because of that, especially when its often " The " game in town. Works for video games as well and ends up why more realistic, harder to learn games end up niche and easy arcade style game mechanics get huge numbers.

 ValentineGames wrote:
What's funny is that writers understand that realism in a Sci-Fi setting is almost a necessity.

*eyes Star Wars or any number of other science fantasy settings equivalent to 40k*

They sure do, pal. They suuuuuure do.

Please. People can't even agree on the details of what realism is, or what is real, in the first place. And that's just real life, without getting in to the art that is fiction.

Does the assertion that "simpler" is the same thing as "counter-intuitive and unrealistic" hold up?

Is 40k actually simpler or is it complicated in unrealistic ways?

Presumably you could make a game identical in most ways to 40k, but make a right where the designers made a left. For example, models with Fly can fall back and shoot - just add two words (monster and vehicle) and you get a more realistic rule.

Oh, 40k is definitely complicated in unrealistic ways.

Prime example: The Warp. It exists, it's completely unrealistic, and this complicates things.

 Melissia wrote:
Oh, 40k is definitely complicated in unrealistic ways.

Prime example: The Warp. It exists, it's completely unrealistic, and this complicates things.

I was thinking ruleswise, not lore wise.

Furthermore, I use realism as a shorthand for "believable within the setting", not literal realism. Like I get that a lot of things in 40k are "unrealistic".

But in a rules sense: why can a Valdor shoot whole being locked up but a Malcador can't? What is fundamentally different about those vehicles? Etc.