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.

Not by much. Single attacks being next to useless in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
" I feel that asking for realism from our space fantasy knight ninja battle game is kind of missing the point"

There still needs to be some kind of internal logic, so meaningful choices can exist.

Sure, and ideally that internal logic would be consistent and choices made based on fluff would translate to the table top in a meaningful way, but, as I pointed out in the second half of the sentence you quoted, GW is bad at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason tanks don't often travel without infantry is they can't see very well and can't go into certain places very well, meaning that infantry are required to help find the enemy and also to go places the tanks can't. They also contribute to keeping enemy anti-tank teams busy by engaging them with infantry.

In 40k, basically none of this is useful. Tanks see as well as any other unit with no restriction, and can go anywhere fearlessly except through Ruin walls. Engaging the enemy anti-tank teams with infantry isn't required, because IGOUGO means the tanks can just delete any anti-tank threat they choose without fear of retaliation - and, since they know the turn order in advance most of the time, they can hide out of LOS until it is their turn.

The abstraction that "tanks can't shoot in melee/after Falling Back" isn't even a very good abstraction, because it results in infantry literally standing in front of the tanks which is also silly and unrealistic; that's not typically how infantry advance. Indeed, standing directly in front of a tank in combat is usually quite hazardous.

The original idea for armored combat in 40k was based more on how tanks functioned in WW1 and WW2. Back when tanks couldn't move and fire heavy ordnance all that effectively and infantry would try to disable tanks up close with grenades or explosives if they couldn't do it from range. Tanks rarely were able to fall back and shoot in early editions after being charged since most infantry would either just wreck them, disable them (weapon destroyed or immobilized) or the tank was shaken or stunned so it couldn't shoot. Now instead of getting stunned or shaken tanks simply can't fall back and shoot.

A lot of 40k tank designs do seem to be inspired by older tank designs. The more "modern" tanks in 40k universe are largely all grav tanks which don't care so much if they are charged in the game since they can fall back and shoot.

I do think some of the larger tanks that aren't super heavies like land raiders should able to fall back and shoot personally.

It is worth pointing out that this dynamic is still true to a large extent. Modern MBT's can shoot on the move, but it is easier to shoot stationary. Effectively shooting on the move is hard. Infantry support is still needed, especially when you get out of the open desert and have to deal with complex terrain, urban environments, things like that. The Syrian government has been proving this quite nicely by sending unsupported tanks into urban areas and they have taken much heavier casualties (2500 or so, according to the last source I looked at) than the on paper forces would indicate.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason tanks don't often travel without infantry is they can't see very well and can't go into certain places very well, meaning that infantry are required to help find the enemy and also to go places the tanks can't. They also contribute to keeping enemy anti-tank teams busy by engaging them with infantry.

In 40k, basically none of this is useful. Tanks see as well as any other unit with no restriction, and can go anywhere fearlessly except through Ruin walls. Engaging the enemy anti-tank teams with infantry isn't required, because IGOUGO means the tanks can just delete any anti-tank threat they choose without fear of retaliation - and, since they know the turn order in advance most of the time, they can hide out of LOS until it is their turn.

The abstraction that "tanks can't shoot in melee/after Falling Back" isn't even a very good abstraction, because it results in infantry literally standing in front of the tanks which is also silly and unrealistic; that's not typically how infantry advance. Indeed, standing directly in front of a tank in combat is usually quite hazardous.

The original idea for armored combat in 40k was based more on how tanks functioned in WW1 and WW2. Back when tanks couldn't move and fire heavy ordnance all that effectively and infantry would try to disable tanks up close with grenades or explosives if they couldn't do it from range. Tanks rarely were able to fall back and shoot in early editions after being charged since most infantry would either just wreck them, disable them (weapon destroyed or immobilized) or the tank was shaken or stunned so it couldn't shoot. Now instead of getting stunned or shaken tanks simply can't fall back and shoot.

A lot of 40k tank designs do seem to be inspired by older tank designs. The more "modern" tanks in 40k universe are largely all grav tanks which don't care so much if they are charged in the game since they can fall back and shoot.

I do think some of the larger tanks that aren't super heavies like land raiders should able to fall back and shoot personally.

Now imagine a World War II that operated in the same logic that 40k operates in.
"Sir, the enemy is fielding a heavy tank unit against us!"
"Don't worry men, if we go hit it with our entrenching tools, it'll be helpless!"

Modern 40k, infantry don't disable tanks with grenades or explosives. They disable tanks simply for existing. If the game didn't have rules for grenades or explosives, I'd understand that abstraction but ... well, it does. If those are insufficient to control a line of tanks being too OP, then perhaps you need to dial up the threat of grenades and explosives, or alternatively dial down the threat posed by the tanks. (in general, I think lethality is way too high right now, but that's a different thread).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason tanks don't often travel without infantry is they can't see very well and can't go into certain places very well, meaning that infantry are required to help find the enemy and also to go places the tanks can't. They also contribute to keeping enemy anti-tank teams busy by engaging them with infantry.

In 40k, basically none of this is useful. Tanks see as well as any other unit with no restriction, and can go anywhere fearlessly except through Ruin walls. Engaging the enemy anti-tank teams with infantry isn't required, because IGOUGO means the tanks can just delete any anti-tank threat they choose without fear of retaliation - and, since they know the turn order in advance most of the time, they can hide out of LOS until it is their turn.

The abstraction that "tanks can't shoot in melee/after Falling Back" isn't even a very good abstraction, because it results in infantry literally standing in front of the tanks which is also silly and unrealistic; that's not typically how infantry advance. Indeed, standing directly in front of a tank in combat is usually quite hazardous.

The original idea for armored combat in 40k was based more on how tanks functioned in WW1 and WW2. Back when tanks couldn't move and fire heavy ordnance all that effectively and infantry would try to disable tanks up close with grenades or explosives if they couldn't do it from range. Tanks rarely were able to fall back and shoot in early editions after being charged since most infantry would either just wreck them, disable them (weapon destroyed or immobilized) or the tank was shaken or stunned so it couldn't shoot. Now instead of getting stunned or shaken tanks simply can't fall back and shoot.

A lot of 40k tank designs do seem to be inspired by older tank designs. The more "modern" tanks in 40k universe are largely all grav tanks which don't care so much if they are charged in the game since they can fall back and shoot.

I do think some of the larger tanks that aren't super heavies like land raiders should able to fall back and shoot personally.

Now imagine a World War II that operated in the same logic that 40k operates in.
"Sir, the enemy is fielding a heavy tank unit against us!"
"Don't worry men, if we go hit it with our entrenching tools, it'll be helpless!"

Modern 40k, infantry don't disable tanks with grenades or explosives. They disable tanks simply for existing. If the game didn't have rules for grenades or explosives, I'd understand that abstraction but ... well, it does. If those are insufficient to control a line of tanks being too OP, then perhaps you need to dial up the threat of grenades and explosives, or alternatively dial down the threat posed by the tanks. (in general, I think lethality is way too high right now, but that's a different thread).

Yea I would prefer if GW changed the close combat rules for infantry fighting vehicles and vice versa. However the result in 8th is that MBTs don't want to be in combat with infantry and would prefer to engage at range. That at least does match older editions and for the most part the WWII era armored combat that the game was originally emulating.

I do also think there should be some penalty for smaller tanks if they are swarmed by infantry, say hormagaunts for instance. That should lower the combat effectiveness of say a Rhino for instance.

How about a better ruleset to begin with, instead of band-aids? The core rules are the problem. Having played 5th-7th, I would say none of those editions reflected the lore well at all.

Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

Some of the core parts sucked but codices were overall inspired. I certainly liked playing my Necrons and Daemonhunters. All Storm Troopers with Grey Knight Terminators as my focused list. Good times.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

Not a csm player I guess.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

So I really dislike some things about this edition. I don't want to get into it here but the core rules really are problematic in many ways - or at least counter-intuitive. #1 counterintuitive thing is IGOUGO.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

I was speaking in the context of the thread topic, not solely vehicles. But yes, the core rules are the problem there as well.

Terrain rules ARE core rules, for one.

IGUGO creating the "need" for falling back at all is another.

Yes, every model with grenades should be allowed to attack a tank with it.

The core rules are little more than resolving attacks, saves, movement, psychic powers, the nearly irrelevant stat line, and some tacked-on stuff for terrain. There is not enough to allow our units to behave in ways that reflect the background. You need a stronger foundation for that,




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

So I really dislike some things about this edition. I don't want to get into it here but the core rules really are problematic in many ways - or at least counter-intuitive. #1 counterintuitive thing is IGOUGO.

I agree 100%. AA would allow us to do more than make attacks and resolve them. Having maybe 5 base actions, and special ones for certain armies/units or combinations of units would make the game so much more fun, and allow us to play the awesome background in games.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

Not a csm player I guess.

If you're referring to the 4th/5th ed codex, that was really more of the first 5th ed book, as iirc it came out like 3 months before 5th dropped. Chaos codex 3.5 was all the rage during 4th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

I was speaking in the context of the thread topic, not solely vehicles. But yes, the core rules are the problem there as well.

Terrain rules ARE core rules, for one.

IGUGO creating the "need" for falling back at all is another.

Yes, every model with grenades should be allowed to attack a tank with it.

The core rules are little more than resolving attacks, saves, movement, psychic powers, the nearly irrelevant stat line, and some tacked-on stuff for terrain. There is not enough to allow our units to behave in ways that reflect the background. You need a stronger foundation for that,

And most of that foundation is good. Fall Back, terrain and grenades is like 3% of it, and they just need modification rather than outright replacement.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And most of that foundation is good. Fall Back, terrain and grenades is like 3% of it, and they just need modification rather than outright replacement.

How about the phenomenon where my anti-tank gunners just sit with their thumbs up their bum while the enemy hides out of LOS. Then they continue to do so while the enemy drives out of LOS, locates them, traverses and depresses its barrel, takes very careful aim, and then fires?

Very nice of them to give the enemy a chance to take careful aim, instead of watching the corner where they can hear an enemy tank like a hawk and firing as soon as enough of the tank is visible that they can nail it.

Don't forget the awful wounding system.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...And most of that foundation is good. Fall Back, terrain and grenades is like 3% of it, and they just need modification rather than outright replacement.

What are Vypers/Land Speeders for this edition? Without vehicle facings why don't I just take more War Walkers/Dreadnaughts and continue to shoot the enemy in the face?

Why was charge-from-Deep-Strike a good idea? It's smart if you want to force everyone to buy a huge number of screening models, but from a game design perspective is allowing people to get into melee and attack without the other person having any chance of interacting with them in any way a good idea?

What's up with the "rule of one" on psychic powers? Why do psykers need to have diminishing value as you take more of them? Is that a good idea?

Why does indirect fire suffer no penalties? Should I be able to load up on artillery and just kill things without the other guy having any way of interacting with my stuff?

True line of sight? Getting all your CP up front so the competitive soup army can just blow twenty CP in one turn? Pricing weapons the same independent of what platform they're on? Character closest-target protection? Charging units always getting to pile in and consolidate whether or not they got to actually fight? Keeping the d6 tables for Warlord Traits and psychic powers while then giving you the ability to select your power and making them range from auto-takes to pointless? Random damage plus FNP on large squads of 1-W models requiring you resolve random damage roll - FNP rolls one at a time? A force org chart that somehow manages to be too restrictive and too open at the same time? Sub-faction traits so narrowly defined they're effectively punishing you for painting your minis the wrong colour? Numbers so badly skewed we need to roll forty dice and then reroll all failed hits and wounds to actually do anything? Volume AT trumping quality AT? Pointlessness of morale?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And most of that foundation is good. Fall Back, terrain and grenades is like 3% of it, and they just need modification rather than outright replacement.

How about the phenomenon where my anti-tank gunners just sit with their thumbs up their bum while the enemy hides out of LOS. Then they continue to do so while the enemy drives out of LOS, locates them, traverses and depresses its barrel, takes very careful aim, and then fires?

Very nice of them to give the enemy a chance to take careful aim, instead of watching the corner where they can hear an enemy tank like a hawk and firing as soon as enough of the tank is visible that they can nail it.

Having played 2nd Edition with the turn-interrupting Overwatch mechanic, I'm ok with not having it. Battles without it tend to be more dynamic. I'm not saying it's a bad mechanic, but many of my 2nd Ed games were dominated by Overwatch. Not having it isn't a crime in my book.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
...And most of that foundation is good. Fall Back, terrain and grenades is like 3% of it, and they just need modification rather than outright replacement.

What are Vypers/Land Speeders for this edition? Without vehicle facings why don't I just take more War Walkers/Dreadnaughts and continue to shoot the enemy in the face?

Why was charge-from-Deep-Strike a good idea? It's smart if you want to force everyone to buy a huge number of screening models, but from a game design perspective is allowing people to get into melee and attack without the other person having any chance of interacting with them in any way a good idea?

What's up with the "rule of one" on psychic powers? Why do psykers need to have diminishing value as you take more of them? Is that a good idea?

Why does indirect fire suffer no penalties? Should I be able to load up on artillery and just kill things without the other guy having any way of interacting with my stuff?

True line of sight? Getting all your CP up front so the competitive soup army can just blow twenty CP in one turn? Pricing weapons the same independent of what platform they're on? Character closest-target protection? Charging units always getting to pile in and consolidate whether or not they got to actually fight? Keeping the d6 tables for Warlord Traits and psychic powers while then giving you the ability to select your power and making them range from auto-takes to pointless? Random damage plus FNP on large squads of 1-W models requiring you resolve random damage roll - FNP rolls one at a time? A force org chart that somehow manages to be too restrictive and too open at the same time? Sub-faction traits so narrowly defined they're effectively punishing you for painting your minis the wrong colour? Numbers so badly skewed we need to roll forty dice and then reroll all failed hits and wounds to actually do anything? Volume AT trumping quality AT? Pointlessness of morale?

TLOS lands under my "better terrain rules" statement, so I've already aknowledged it. Imo better terrain rules would also benefit Land Speeders and Vypers because their benefit should be the fact that they can be highly maneuverable gun platforms. Much of the rest of what you mention I'm ok with. "Painting your mini's the wrong color" I don't consider part of the core rules, is rarely enforced in my experience, and easily sidestepped.

Ignoring LOS is an interesting one, because what is really the issue and where is it defined? There are lots of IgnoreLOS guns that aren't game breaking, and they're defined as part of the Datasheet and not really mentioned in the "core rules" iirc. Also, better terrain rules or adjustments to the prices of the pieces could help mitigate any problems. Or is the problem the fact that you can take nine(?) Basilisks in an army, which would be an FOC problem and not an IgnoreLOS problem? Is the problem with light mortar spam? Would changing the wound-chart fix the issue? Speaking of which. . .

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Don't forget the awful wounding system.

That's a good one to look at, and I prefer the old wounding table. But it hardly requires a ground-up rewrite of the rulebook. In fact it's a better example of how a minuscule change can have a large effect.

Another example: The idea behind Command Points and Stratagems is an idea I can get behind. The problem I have is their overabundance and potency of certain stratagems. If everyone just had a basic set of six Stratagems out of the main BRB, I think that'd be better. But that's not a change to the core rules, that's a change in the details of execution.

if they limited it to one strat per phase or limit max cp spent per turn it would mitigate some of the super stacking wombocombo nonsense with a relatively small tweak.

Exactly, I find it really silly that they would “simplify” rules and then add a bazillion immersion breaking ad hoc rules in the form of stratagems. I am sick of combos that GW does not know how to balance (iron hands immortal coffin anyone?).

Break down the Uber I go you go structure: I) better over watch, II) opportunity attacks on units falling back, iii) bring back initiative in combat (and not use via special rules).

Flesh out morale: I) do units stand their ground against a terrifying charge? Back in musket warfare often charging units wouldn’t make contact; the enemy would flee before melee. II) let units attempt to regroup.

Bring back meaningful infantry vs vehicle combat: I) at the very least bonus to wound in cc.

Recover the old weapon design philosophy: I) back in the day getting closer was rewarded with better firepower (e.g rapid fire); now we have a lot of small arms that instead favor sitting and shooting (freaking new silly bolsters). II) weapon rarity: a whole squad of thunder hammers? That should be restricted to the Uber elite or only squad leaders (e.g exarch design style).

I don’t think this would be rule bloat, and at least those are rules grounded on somemintuitive understanding of battles. Right now we have a bazillion nonsensical strategies instead.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

*Looks at the Necron codex in that edition*

You sure about that?

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The core rules are not the problem, the basis of 8th ed is mostly perfectly acceptable. Better terrain rules, better fall back, and better grenade usage against vehicles in assault are the big issues. These aren't overhauls, just some tuning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Aye, I say we go back to 3rd edition. I still have my codex.

Imo 4th is where it's at. Best codexes with the most options.

*Looks at the Necron codex in that edition*

You sure about that?

Ok. Necron book had fewer option. But it was better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember how several people didn't catch the change to grenades in 7th from 6th? Those were great times.

That was soooooooooooooo dumb.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember how several people didn't catch the change to grenades in 7th from 6th? Those were great times.

That was soooooooooooooo dumb.

Par for the course for GW.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember how several people didn't catch the change to grenades in 7th from 6th? Those were great times.

That was soooooooooooooo dumb.

If I had used lists that relied on grenades in melee I might've caught it earlier. At most I did the suicide Scouts in a Storm. And that was just about using the Melta bomb compared to the Kraks.

"The Role of Realism in 40k"

I think the "intent" of that definition is what I always looked for in a game that has "fluff" (stories, multi-media than just one source) is as a simulator of the lore.
If the game system cannot support creating situations in a video game or books, what good is it?
BUT you want it to be an entertaining game as well, no use all Xenos getting stomped and the SM's kill everything with ease.

Realism is all a matter of context, how well actions fit the environment envisioned.

If Luke Skywalker could fly at will... that would be a problem (but he jumps real good!).
If Darth Vader made a good impression of the Flash... that would be a problem.

"Astartes" the soon to be 5 part series is awesome to watch to get the idea of what a Space Marine should be based on how them and their gear are described.

I just put together a 40k scale Warhound Titan ("proxy") and that will be a beast to envision correctly.
Just like with rules, we like to be on the same page for our expectations.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember how several people didn't catch the change to grenades in 7th from 6th? Those were great times.

That was soooooooooooooo dumb.

If I had used lists that relied on grenades in melee I might've caught it earlier. At most I did the suicide Scouts in a Storm. And that was just about using the Melta bomb compared to the Kraks.

I used grenades fairly often against light tanks, monsters and things with bad rear armour. Plus one of my armies was Eldar so I had cheesy haywire hawks.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Remember how several people didn't catch the change to grenades in 7th from 6th? Those were great times.

That was soooooooooooooo dumb.

If I had used lists that relied on grenades in melee I might've caught it earlier. At most I did the suicide Scouts in a Storm. And that was just about using the Melta bomb compared to the Kraks.

I used grenades fairly often against light tanks, monsters and things with bad rear armour. Plus one of my armies was Eldar so I had cheesy haywire hawks.

Yeah I avoided vehicles often because of the bad HP rules being exploited like that.

Recalling

a prior post exalting the virtues of Epic (best game GW ever wrote - and this might very well be the case)
and following this topic now of returns to older, more 'realistic' editions (rewarding close up firepower with rapid fire added drama as well as realism, vehicle facing added drama and emphasized movement and strategy, positioning and flexible loadouts and so on)
and underscoring the weaknesses i go you go turn system

,

I would be a fan of a use of command markers as we saw in Epic, with each player alternating the assignment of certain orders to all units at the start of a turn, and then alternating their activations accordingly.

This would make more realistic the effects of a central command structure,
while also allowing for certain more individual units to change these initial orders at perhaps a lower cost (in command points, using them for something less gamey) than others which might be more rigid in their execution of orders for different reasons.

Overwatch would be one of these of course, and should play as it used to play imho but perhaps with some tweaks.
Moreover, I would be a fan of the return of movement and initiative stats, and then using them so that they make a difference on the table.
The return of vehicle facing and templates is also a given, for me.

I will not specify how this might be done,
and rather now request that maybe we can collect some constructive notions of how to go from what we have to what would qualify as more realistic to both take advantage of common intuitions about how the world works so that the game is both more accessible to new players as well as more immersive for everyone, especially people with more real world experience that should be supported by the play of the game and not contradicted as so much of the current system is..

I'd still argue that stripping psychology out of the game is a big deal in terms of realism. I've heard the argument that all the factions in the game are sold as fearless and what have you but given how key it is/was in real pitched battles it does massively break immersion for me.

I don't think maybe losing some guys if a squad has take casualties counts.

Dai wrote:
I'd still argue that stripping psychology out of the game is a big deal in terms of realism. I've heard the argument that all the factions in the game are sold as fearless and what have you but given how key it is/was in real pitched battles it does massively break immersion for me.

I don't think maybe losing some guys if a squad has take casualties counts.

agreed - morale is an important mechanic, and might show up in orders and commands, being able to act, etc.

other useful mechanics included pinning - I liked that - and might be useful in similar ways.

Dai wrote:
I'd still argue that stripping psychology out of the game is a big deal in terms of realism. I've heard the argument that all the factions in the game are sold as fearless and what have you but given how key it is/was in real pitched battles it does massively break immersion for me.

I don't think maybe losing some guys if a squad has take casualties counts.

I'm one of those people who thinks it shouldn't be in 40k. So few things have enough capacity for fear that morale isn't really a factor outside a few minorities ingame. Still, I'd rather an out of place morale system than the weird battleshock rules.