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.

Can you imagine the tedium in a game like modern 40k where somebody can bring 12 tanks? Just figuring out where each one was being hit by what would take you 20 minutes every shooting phase. The arguments about "no, only 3 of your guys can hit my side armor! no, 5 can, these two are .01mm closer to the side than the front!" etc etc.

There are wargames that will give you that kind of hardcore simulation, but 40k has very clearly moved away from it, so I doubt you're going to see them moving back to that.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


Today I learned that a Take-All-Comers, TAC list, actually literally means any list that can take on any opponent, even if it leans hard into spamming one thing, and not one with a balanced composition.

I guess all-Knights lists and flyer spam are TAC now.

Uh yes, you learned that a "take all comers" list means a list that can take all comers.

I'm glad you could learn something today, though it probably shouldn't have been too much of a surprise, given it is literally just what the words mean.

If you mean "a list with lots of different types of units and weapons, nothing to do with whether it can take all comers" you should probably come up with some new terminology because why are you calling something take all comers if its ability to take all comers is irrelevant to being a, well, take all comers list?

An all-knights list could in theory be a TAC list, as could a flyer list, assuming there were ways to take those armies that actually can take all comers. Though I don't think you can make a good TAC list in 9th with either, and you certainly can't with only flyers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


On that note:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Please stop wasting everyone's time with stupid straw men; it's a lazy and totally pointless way to argue. I did not say the only way to stop the game being dominated by vehicles was to allow anti-infantry weapons to be able to hurt tanks. I never said anything like that.

Seriously? You've spent the entire thread defending the idea of anti-infantry weapons hurting tanks, and portraying it as necessary to avoid skew lists further dominating the game.

You're highlighting the wrong part of your own straw man. You can tell because I even told you what part of it was the straw man; I re-highlighted it for you. If anti-infantry weapons couldn't hurt tanks, tank-heavy lists wouldn't automatically dominate the game; you would just need to take a large amount of AT weapons in every list to avoid the auto-loss you would otherwise get if you came up against one. If anything, it might actually make heavy vehicle lists less effective competitively, because literally everyone would *have* to build in tons of AT weapons to their list, so then taking a list that *doesn't* have good targets for the AT results in greater efficiency gain than actually going vehicle-heavy. The reason I think it's bad design is not because it would make vehicles dominate the game, but because it would remove flexibility from list construction by forcing every single list to go heavy into specialized AT weapons no matter what to avoid the possibility of the auto-loss. I don't think the game is better by forcing everyone to take 20 Lascannon equivalents in every army because nothing but that kind of weapon can hurt a tank and you auto lose against a tank-only army if you don't do that.

Please read what I'm writing, it's so tedious to have to constantly point out how you're distorting what I wrote.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Can you imagine the tedium in a game like modern 40k where somebody can bring 12 tanks? Just figuring out where each one was being hit by what would take you 20 minutes every shooting phase. The arguments about "no, only 3 of your guys can hit my side armor! no, 5 can, these two are .01mm closer to the side than the front!" etc etc.

No need to imagine, because those games exist, and it's not actually a problem in real life. The games of Heresy I've played (with lots of tanks, to be clear) have gone faster than 40K. Lack of rerolls dramatically outweighs the (minimal) time requirement to work out facing. In Flames of War you can have 40+ vehicles on the board and spend no measurable time at all assessing facing.

Honestly, you really would be a lot better off if you had game experience outside 40K to refer to. That's not a jab, I'm serious. 40K alone provides a very limited perspective on game design.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh yes, you learned that a "take all comers" list means a list that can take all comers.

I have learned that you don't subscribe to the commonly-understood meaning of a 'take all comers' list.

Also that you complain about weapon specialization promoting skew lists and constraining listbuilding, but then praise the idea of every army being pushed to spam the same mid-strength weapons to be most effective.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Can you imagine the tedium in a game like modern 40k where somebody can bring 12 tanks? Just figuring out where each one was being hit by what would take you 20 minutes every shooting phase. The arguments about "no, only 3 of your guys can hit my side armor! no, 5 can, these two are .01mm closer to the side than the front!" etc etc.

Games still exist that do this, and 40k used to do this, and everything was fine. I suggest you give 30k a shot sometime - or perhaps something entirely different, like Bolt Action, which also has vehicle facings - in fact, at the 1:1 miniatures level (where 1 miniature = 1 man/tank/whatever) I'm hard pressed to think of a system that doesn't have armor facings, except 40k and AOS. (if they include tanks at all)

yukishiro1 wrote:
There are wargames that will give you that kind of hardcore simulation, but 40k has very clearly moved away from it, so I doubt you're going to see them moving back to that.

that doesn't mean that those of us who enjoyed it cannot offer constructive criticism or discussion points about the game. In fact, it's all the more reason to get loud about it.

 catbarf wrote:

Also that you complain about weapon specialization promoting skew lists and constraining listbuilding, but then praise the idea of every army being pushed to spam the same mid-strength weapons to be most effective.

I didn't praise that idea. I have specifically, multiple times in this thread, said I think that mid-S weapons are too efficient right now and I would like to see steps taken to address that. This is the third or fourth time in a row you've straw manned what I said. Up until now I've politely asked you to stop doing it, but that obviously isn't working, so I don't think there's much point in continuing to talk with someone who is obviously either unwilling or incapable of actually reading what I write. There's just no point in talking with someone who insists on changing everything you say into something that's easier for them to knock down. It's not even a real conversation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Can you imagine the tedium in a game like modern 40k where somebody can bring 12 tanks? Just figuring out where each one was being hit by what would take you 20 minutes every shooting phase. The arguments about "no, only 3 of your guys can hit my side armor! no, 5 can, these two are .01mm closer to the side than the front!" etc etc.

Games still exist that do this, and 40k used to do this, and everything was fine. I suggest you give 30k a shot sometime - or perhaps something entirely different, like Bolt Action, which also has vehicle facings - in fact, at the 1:1 miniatures level (where 1 miniature = 1 man/tank/whatever) I'm hard pressed to think of a system that doesn't have armor facings, except 40k and AOS. (if they include tanks at all)

yukishiro1 wrote:
There are wargames that will give you that kind of hardcore simulation, but 40k has very clearly moved away from it, so I doubt you're going to see them moving back to that.

that doesn't mean that those of us who enjoyed it cannot offer constructive criticism or discussion points about the game. In fact, it's all the more reason to get loud about it.

Of course games still exist that do it. That was my point. If you like those games, shouldn't you be the one that plays those games, rather than me? It seems weird to tell me to play the game system I don't like because you like it and want to make this game into the same system.

40k has gone in a very different direction. You may not like it, and you're certainly willing to express your opinion. But I think it'd be more useful to focus on things you have an actual chance of changing. AV isn't coming back. We just had a new edition and it isn't back. At a bare minimum, you're looking at 3+ years until you could have AV come back - and I think we both know it won't then, either. But either way, you have absolutely zero chance of getting AV back in the next 3 years, just like there is absolutely zero chance of bringing back the old wounding chart for the next 3+ years. So it would probably make more sense to talk about ways to make the game play better within the current system, wouldn't it?

We all seem to agree that mid-S, high volume of fire weapons are too efficient right now. So why not talk about solutions to that that are actually possible, instead of fighting over windmills?

yukishiro1 wrote:
You're highlighting the wrong part of your own straw man. You can tell because I even told you what part of it was the straw man; I re-highlighted it for you. If anti-infantry weapons couldn't hurt tanks, tank-heavy lists wouldn't automatically dominate the game; you would just need to take a large amount of AT weapons in every list to avoid the auto-loss you would otherwise get if you came up against one. If anything, it might actually make heavy vehicle lists less effective competitively, because literally everyone would *have* to build in tons of AT weapons to their list, so then taking a list that *doesn't* have good targets for the AT results in greater efficiency gain than actually going vehicle-heavy. The reason I think it's bad design is not because it would make vehicles dominate the game, but because it would remove flexibility from list construction by forcing every single list to go heavy into specialized AT weapons no matter what to avoid the possibility of the auto-loss. I don't think the game is better by forcing everyone to take 20 Lascannon equivalents in every army because nothing but that kind of weapon can hurt a tank and you auto lose against a tank-only army if you don't do that.

Thank you for finally, clearly stating that position. Seriously, I have not been trying to straw man you; but you keep posting these quips about 'feels bad' and players deserving to 'get rolled' and seemingly get upset that I'm responding to what it looks like you're saying and not what was actually in your head. Judging by the other replies I am clearly not the only one having this problem.

Here's the thing: Your imagined scenario already existed, in the form of Knights in 8th. Every tournament list in 8th had to have enough anti-tank for the gatekeeper all-Knights list. The problem was that the current wounding system does not allow for non-anti-tank weapons to contribute meaningfully to anti-vehicle and obviate the need for massed anti-tank; it lets anti-infantry weapons chip in a bit, but you still need large numbers of lascannons, meltas, lances, or other weapons suitable for anti-tank duty. In turn, this did create a niche for horde spam lists that could take advantage of their opponents having brought a bunch of anti-tank.

In fact, in some ways it's worse than previous editions of 40K- my infantry were far more dangerous to tanks by being able to plant grenades on rear armor than they are now where at best they fish for 6s on their rifles. I have no choice but to take heavy weapon platforms, because I can't count on a unit of Scions one-shotting a Land Raider with a meltabomb, or a unit of Genestealers tearing through a Russ in one go. A unit of Veterans with three Meltaguns popping out of a Chimera used to be a death sentence to any tank they got near; now they struggle to even bracket a single tank in one volley.

Making anti-infantry weapons less effective against tanks, and anti-tank weapons more effective (that's the key to this; I haven't seen anyone here argue that tanks should be less vulnerable to infantry with no other changes), doesn't constrain listbuilding more than the current paradigm does. If you brought all anti-infantry weapons against tanks or Knights you would lose. If you brought all anti-infantry weapons against tanks or Knights in 8th you lost anyways. Flattened weapon performance doesn't unlock more options in listbuilding; it means you have to spam more anti-tank weapons, because a single lascannon inflicting D6 damage isn't scary anymore to a Knight rocking a 4+ invuln and 24+ wounds.

The Knight skew existed because weapons that should be effective anti-Knight weapons don't hard-counter them enough to overcome the skew- spamming Scissors is viable if it can beat a 'normal' army's allocation of Rock. This is reason to have more divergent profiles and counters baked into the game, not further homogenization of unit and weapon profiles to make armies functionally identical.

How does the game curtail Knight spam in 9th? Simple- it doesn't make them more vulnerable or less powerful (more the opposite, actually, given that they now have plenty of CP without souping); it uses missions where the inability of Knights to hold terrain or deal with mass numbers of infantry represents a tactical weakness that loses games, irrespective of whether or not they survive or how much damage they deal. The tactical inability for vehicles to hold terrain is a real-world maxim that, translated into 40K, puts a limiter on the ability of vehicle skew lists to win missions.

Again, I think you would really benefit from seeing how historical wargames handle this, because there are real incentives to combined arms in real life that carry over into well-researched games. It doesn't even have to be WW2; something like pike-and-shot or Napoleonic will show you what happens when a glitzy army of all cavalry runs into pike or bayonet squares. Skew arises when a specialized army is just as capable of playing the game as a 'well-rounded' one while simultaneously minimizing its vulnerabilities; addressing the latter is one way to address it but far from the only way. Any decently-written wargame will ensure that skew lists suffer tradeoffs for not taking a mix of capabilities.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course games still exist that do it. That was my point. If you like those games, shouldn't you be the one that plays those games, rather than me? It seems weird to tell me to play the game system I don't like because you like it and want to make this game into the same system.

I do play those games, but I also like 40k and have spent more money on 40k than it is safe to publicly admit. And what I'm trying to understand is:
Why don't you like a system with greater realism? Why does "my AK-47s can spray down Challenger II tanks from the front" make it a better system?

yukishiro1 wrote:
40k has gone in a very different direction. You may not like it, and you're certainly willing to express your opinion. But I think it'd be more useful to focus on things you have an actual chance of changing. AV isn't coming back. We just had a new edition and it isn't back. At a bare minimum, you're looking at 3+ years until you could have AV come back - and I think we both know it won't then, either. But either way, you have absolutely zero chance of getting AV back in the next 3 years, just like there is absolutely zero chance of bringing back the old wounding chart for the next 3+ years. So it would probably make more sense to talk about ways to make the game play better within the current system, wouldn't it?

We all seem to agree that mid-S, high volume of fire weapons are too efficient right now. So why not talk about solutions to that that are actually possible, instead of fighting over windmills?

Because the Proposed Rules system is for talking about actual proposed rules, while this forum lends itself more to philosophy and conceptual discussion. As for it never coming back? Never is a long time, my friend.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not ducking out of anything, I'm literally quoting what you wrote and responding to it. You said it was better back when we had AV so infantry could hurt vehicles what way. Going back to the old wound chart wouldn't allow infantry to hurt vehicles that way because, well, you wouldn't have AV, which was the basis of what you said. It was a completely logical and on-topic response, as far from "ducking" as you could get. And I'm not the one who said he was ignoring what the other person said, btw.

But if you don't want to talk that's certainly up to you. If you're not having a good time talking, you shouldn't talk.

No, you're not responding at all to the idea that there are potentially other ways of dealing with high AV targets than firing assault rifles at them. You've said that having ways to engage armor beyond dedicated anti-tank weaponry is necessary, and I just gave you an alternative to the current paradigm. And you're like: "nu uhhh, maaann. Take it to GW!" Which is the opposite of constructive. So if you're not going to be willing to engage in alternatives that address the issues you've stated, you're not here in good faith.

So the question is: Are you open to other anti-tank options if common weapons lose the ability to engage armor? Is that a potential solution for you?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I do play those games, but I also like 40k and have spent more money on 40k than it is safe to publicly admit. And what I'm trying to understand is:
Why don't you like a system with greater realism? Why does "my AK-47s can spray down Challenger II tanks from the front" make it a better system?

It kinda is the wrong focus regarding 40k. I mean, there aren't such things like AK-47s and Challengers. There are lasguns and leman russes (with the latter being so badly designed that a lucky hit from a lasgun may actually do stuff).

In an historical game, realism matter as you are simulating historical, real battles. But 40k isn't an historical wargame, I mean it has giant monsters and guys with swords, daemons and psychic powers. Realism has never been an objective here.

@catbart, don't want to quote the whole thing

But see that's just not true. You could beat knight or tank-heavy armies in 8th without a ton of dedicated AT, and that was specifically because of the flattened wound table (typically combined with modifiers and/or rerolls). Tons of lists were based on this. Think Eldar lists with starcannons and doom; a doomed knight will absolutely go down to starcannon fire.

I had a primarily TSons list that killed knights with rubrics; the list had the ability to summon in a poxbringer that could debuff toughness, and rubrics firing at a T7 target absolutely shred it with vets up, especially if death hex goes off too. Once ritual of the damned came out, my 20 man rubric block could solo a knight in one round of shooting.

That's probably exactly the sort of list you disagree with, and would insist is not a TAC list, even though it literally was a TAC list, just build in a creative way you don't seem to want to recognize because it doesn't boast tons of lascannon equivalents. But it's a concrete example of how a flattened wound chart creates the opportunity to build literal, actual take-all-comers lists in a variety of creative ways.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I do play those games, but I also like 40k and have spent more money on 40k than it is safe to publicly admit. And what I'm trying to understand is:
Why don't you like a system with greater realism? Why does "my AK-47s can spray down Challenger II tanks from the front" make it a better system?

It kinda is the wrong focus regarding 40k. I mean, there aren't such things like AK-47s and Challengers. There are lasguns and leman russes (with the latter being so badly designed that a lucky hit from a lasgun may actually do stuff).

In an historical game, realism matter as you are simulating historical, real battles. But 40k isn't an historical wargame, I mean it has giant monsters and guys with swords, daemons and psychic powers. Realism has never been an objective here.

You can have all sorts of fantastical elements but still treat them with varying degrees of realism, and more 'realism' seems to have been more of an objective of design in some past editions.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course games still exist that do it. That was my point. If you like those games, shouldn't you be the one that plays those games, rather than me? It seems weird to tell me to play the game system I don't like because you like it and want to make this game into the same system.

I do play those games, but I also like 40k and have spent more money on 40k than it is safe to publicly admit. And what I'm trying to understand is:
Why don't you like a system with greater realism? Why does "my AK-47s can spray down Challenger II tanks from the front" make it a better system?

Because 40k is a game about crazy fascist spacemen fighting spikey chaos-worshippers or fungus people or psychic sorcerers who bend reality to their mind and can blow holes through vehicles with brain pewpew.

I want a game where the focus is on strategy, not on fighting over whether it's 4 of my guys or 5 that can hit your back armor with my psychically enhanced guns that fire explosive shells that you think should never be able to damage a WW-2 style tank because it isn't realistic. If you want to play a realistic wargame, play a realistic wargame. 40k has never been that; it was not that even when it had AV. It never will be that. There are games for that itch if you want to scratch it.

Nothing about 40k is realistic. The setting is a tongue-in-cheek caricature. The stories are ridiculous. It's all about drama and having a laugh with your mates. It just seems such a weird hill to die on to insist that it's a massive problem with 40k that a lasgun can plink a wound off a tank when you have space bugs blowing holes in said tank with their brains while giant humanoid fungus creatures beat you to death with their own arms that you've shot off.

If 40k had never had AV values and had always used the "new" wound chart this wouldn't be a hill you're dying on. This is less about realism and more about not liking a change the game made. Which is fine - you're totally entitled to not like a change. But it was made 3 years ago, and deliberately not changed in the new edition that just came out. So it's not a change that's going away. You're welcome to continue to express disagreement with it, don't get me wrong, but you're not going to get your old 40k with AV and vehicles invulnerable to bolter fire back.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course games still exist that do it. That was my point. If you like those games, shouldn't you be the one that plays those games, rather than me? It seems weird to tell me to play the game system I don't like because you like it and want to make this game into the same system.

I do play those games, but I also like 40k and have spent more money on 40k than it is safe to publicly admit. And what I'm trying to understand is:
Why don't you like a system with greater realism? Why does "my AK-47s can spray down Challenger II tanks from the front" make it a better system?

Because 40k is a game about crazy fascist spacemen fighting spikey chaos-worshippers or fungus people or psychic sorcerers who bend reality to their mind and can blow holes through vehicles with brain pewpew.

I want a game where the focus is on strategy, not on fighting over whether it's 4 of my guys or 5 that can hit your back armor with my psychically enhanced guns that fire explosive shells that you think should never be able to damage a WW-2 style tank because it isn't realistic. If you want to play a realistic wargame, play a realistic wargame. 40k has never been that; it was not that even when it had AV. It never will be that. There are games for that itch if you want to scratch it.

Nothing about 40k is realistic. The setting is a tongue-in-cheek caricature. The stories are ridiculous. It's all about drama and having a laugh with your mates. It just seems such a weird hill to die on to insist that it's a massive problem with 40k that a lasgun can plink a wound off a tank when you have space bugs blowing holes in said tank with their brains while giant humanoid fungus creatures beat you to death with their own arms that you've shot off.

Having hard limits to weapon capability, and having vehicle rules that encourage flanking, are also ways to bring more focus on strategy.

That's a bait and switch, both of you that replied to me.

I am not talking about "realism" in the REAL LIFE sense. I am talking about realism in 40k's background, as I've said more than once (though to be fair in other threads).

Other posters have used verisimilitude, which is fine I suppose. Maybe I should've used that, but to sum up:

The game has a setting. The setting needs to be consistent. If the setting says small arms can damage tanks, then so be it - tanks will be removed from the setting, since they no longer serve a purpose (restoring mobility to an extra-lethal battlefield by being armored against that lethality). But tanks do exist, and in the novels, are never concerned with the small arms that the enemy has, whether Baneblade, Predator, Russ, or Wave Serpent.

So accepting that the setting includes these elements, then we return to the idea that the game should reflect the setting. Do you disagree? Because fundamentally, that's what you're doing. Disagreeing with the basic idea that gameplay should reflect the setting.

The "AK-47 vs Challenger II" example is exactly applicable, because it's exactly that sort of "modern-but-future" feel 40k goes for. We could do MP40 vs Sherman if you wanted, or M1 Garand against King Tiger, or we could leap somewhere in the middle and do AK-47 versus Chieftain or something. The fundamental distinction is "weapon vs. thing that wouldn't exist if it couldn't repel weapon firepower of that type"

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can have all sorts of fantastical elements but still treat them with varying degrees of realism, and more 'realism' seems to have been more of an objective of design in some past editions.

Not really, the AV system was unrealistic because that isn't how armor penetration works, and the melee system has never been realistic, soldiers don't drop their weapons because their enemy managed to get close to them, and fire support can be very willing to blow up the enemy even if it takes their unlucky comrades with it, specially with the lore elements we are working here.

And the differences between vehicles and monsters break down once you consider the lore, Tyranid monsters were described as being living tanks with comparable armor and yet they had an entirely different system which did not favor them: vehicles were immune to lasguns, but my monsters weren't, also my monsters could be tied in melee unlike tanks. So much for following the lore.

And of course the great offenders was how Space Marines were on the tabletop and how they are in the lore, exemplified by the "Movie Marines".

yukishiro1 wrote:
But see that's just not true. You could beat knight or tank-heavy armies in 8th without a ton of dedicated AT, and that was specifically because of the flattened wound table (typically combined with modifiers and/or rerolls). Tons of lists were based on this. Think Eldar lists with starcannons and doom; a doomed knight will absolutely go down to starcannon fire.

I had a primarily TSons list that killed knights with rubrics; the list had the ability to summon in a poxbringer that could debuff toughness, and rubrics firing at a T7 target absolutely shred it with vets up, especially if death hex goes off too. Once ritual of the damned came out, my 20 man rubric block could solo a knight in one round of shooting.

Sure, but you had to build in those specific gimmicks (Doom, poxbringer, VotLW, death hex) into your list in order to be effective at anti-tank. Those constrain your listbuilding just as surely as needing to bring anti-tank weapons does. What about the TSons player who actually wants to play pure Tzeentch and doesn't want to soup in Nurgle? What about the Eldar player who doesn't want to spam flyers with Starcannons, or rely on Doom as the lynchpin of their anti-tank ability? Or the Guard player who wants to play an infantry force and doesn't even have ways to make his mid-level weapons effective at anti-tank?

On the flipside, why wouldn't those force-multipliers allow an army to get away with fewer dedicated anti-tank weapons? If Bright Lances were scary again, combining a couple them with Doom would let you achieve your requisite anti-tank support without having to fill your army with any specific weapon. Fire Dragons with appropriately scary melta would be a credible threat. Veterans of the Lost War works on Havocs, and with split fire a single unit with multiple lascannons could be a serious threat to multiple vehicles simultaneously. The force-multipliers that you describe to allow non-anti-tank weapons to perform anti-tank duty could instead be enabling a smaller number of dedicated anti-tank weapons to do their job better, and free up the rest of the army for other things.

Beyond those possibilities, I would argue that it is absolutely a 'feels bad' moment when stacking abstract wombo combos allows riflemen to blow up Knights like you describe your Rubrics doing. It's the same deal with Imperial Fists and Stalker Bolt Rifles being effective tank-killers in Devastator doctrine.

yukishiro1 wrote:

I want a game where the focus is on strategy...

Then why the feth are you playing 40K?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having hard limits to weapon capability, and having vehicle rules that encourage flanking, are also ways to bring more focus on strategy.

Sure. I'm not saying it isn't. And if you want to play a game based on that sort of strategy, play a game based on that sort of strategy. There are plenty out there.

But it's not the sort of strategy game I want to play, nor is apparently the sort of strategy game GW wants 40k to be any more. They've gone in a fundamentally different direction, not just in 8th but further in 9th, with a host of changes that both (1) open up design space to bring the kind of army you want to bring, and (2) de-emphasize the importance of minute maneuvering generally. It's very clear GW sees the game not as a simulation but a strategy game.

It happens to be a direction I like and one you don't like, and you're welcome to say that. If enough people thought like you, GW might even change their mind. But they don't, and GW isn't going to change its mind, just like you're not going to convince me that I should prefer a simulation wargame to a strategy wargame.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can have all sorts of fantastical elements but still treat them with varying degrees of realism, and more 'realism' seems to have been more of an objective of design in some past editions.

Not really, the AV system was unrealistic because that isn't how armor penetration works . . .

I'll stop you right there. Are you telling me that it's common for professional soldiers to spray and pray at heavily armored vehicles? Because in previous 40K editions you basically never did that, but in the current system it's done all the time. Which is more 'realistic' to you?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

I want a game where the focus is on strategy...

Then why the feth are you playing 40K?

Now now, depending on health of the local community he might not have any other alternative then 40k as a TG.

Also it doesn't help that alternatives, that are less, let's say bound to locality aka videogames haven't really been up to snuff alot of time in regards to RTS.

 catbarf wrote:

On the flipside, why wouldn't those force-multipliers allow an army to get away with fewer dedicated anti-tank weapons? If Bright Lances were scary again, combining a couple them with Doom would let you achieve your requisite anti-tank support without having to fill your army with any specific weapon. Fire Dragons with appropriately scary melta would be a credible threat. Veterans of the Lost War works on Havocs, and with split fire a single unit with multiple lascannons could be a serious threat to multiple vehicles simultaneously. The force-multipliers that you describe to allow non-anti-tank weapons to perform anti-tank duty could instead be enabling a smaller number of dedicated anti-tank weapons to do their job better, and free up the rest of the army for other things.

Beyond those possibilities, I would argue that it is absolutely a 'feels bad' moment when stacking abstract wombo combos allows riflemen to blow up Knights like you describe your Rubrics doing. It's the same deal with Imperial Fists and Stalker Bolt Rifles being effective tank-killers in Devastator doctrine.

Of course you could do those things. That's the whole point. The wound chart compression gives you options to do many different things. You could do all those things in 8th. If they weren't optimal it was because of problems with the design of those elements, not because my rubrics had a creative way to deal with knights too. Your argument is that it's a problem that there are multiple ways to do something and that the only option for dealing with tanks should be dedicated AT weapons. That's an argument you can make, but it's absolutely not an argument in favor of greater flexibility in building lists.

It's not true that I had to build my list that way. I could have taken AT weapons instead. If the AT option was underpowered, the solution is to fix that, not remove my ability to find other ways to get to the same place.

You consider death hex and psychically enhanced guns and psychically debuffed enemies a "gimmick" and an "abstract wombo-combo" while loading up on tons of lascannons is a "strategy." But that's just your own biases talking. Maybe death hex and psychically enhanced weapons and psychically debuffed armor is the strategy for a faction based around psychic power, and spamming lascannons is the gimmick. Who's to say? Why do you feel entitled to brand my list a gimmick while your list that just brute forces vehicles with AT is the right way to play the game?

I want to have a game where people can make tons of different builds work using the full flexibility accorded by the game mechanics. You seem to want a game where everyone has to build similar lists that take enough of what you consider to be mandatory in order not to get stomped because builds you don't like are "gimmicks." You're welcome to that opinion, but it's not one I share, and it relies on a subjective determination as to what is a gimmick and what isn't that not everyone shares.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I'll stop you right there. Are you telling me that it's common for professional soldiers to spray and pray at heavily armored vehicles? Because in previous 40K editions you basically never did that, but in the current system it's done all the time. Which is more 'realistic' to you?

Nice strawman, I stated that the AV system wasn't realistic, I never made a comparison with the current system.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having hard limits to weapon capability, and having vehicle rules that encourage flanking, are also ways to bring more focus on strategy.

Sure. I'm not saying it isn't. And if you want to play a game based on that sort of strategy, play a game based on that sort of strategy. There are plenty out there.

But it's not the sort of strategy game I want to play, nor is apparently the sort of strategy game GW wants 40k to be any more. They've gone in a fundamentally different direction, not just in 8th but further in 9th, with a host of changes that both (1) open up design space to bring the kind of army you want to bring, and (2) de-emphasize the importance of minute maneuvering generally. It's very clear GW sees the game not as a simulation but a strategy game.

It happens to be a direction I like and one you don't like, and you're welcome to say that. If enough people thought like you, GW might even change their mind. But they don't, and GW isn't going to change its mind, just like you're not going to convince me that I should prefer a simulation wargame to a strategy wargame.

Your preferences are all well and good. But then don't say that:

yukishiro1 wrote:

I want a game where the focus is on strategy, not on fighting over whether it's 4 of my guys or 5 that can hit your back armor with my psychically enhanced guns that fire explosive shells that you think should never be able to damage a WW-2 style tank because it isn't realistic. If you want to play a realistic wargame, play a realistic wargame. 40k has never been that; it was not that even when it had AV. It never will be that. There are games for that itch if you want to scratch it.

Nothing about 40k is realistic. The setting is a tongue-in-cheek caricature. The stories are ridiculous. It's all about drama and having a laugh with your mates. It just seems such a weird hill to die on to insist that it's a massive problem with 40k that a lasgun can plink a wound off a tank when you have space bugs blowing holes in said tank with their brains while giant humanoid fungus creatures beat you to death with their own arms that you've shot off.

Because 40K obviously had more elements like that at one time. And you can't say that you want a focus on strategy but expect nobody to bring up the fact that you can't even flank a vehicle anymore.

In fact it seems like you're saying that 40 has never been realistic, but also saying that the mechanics of prior 40K were more realistic, at the same time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I'll stop you right there. Are you telling me that it's common for professional soldiers to spray and pray at heavily armored vehicles? Because in previous 40K editions you basically never did that, but in the current system it's done all the time. Which is more 'realistic' to you?

Nice strawman, I stated that the AV system wasn't realistic, I never made a comparison with the current system.

The whole discussion has been driven by comparing the two. Which do you think is more realistic? Or why do you prefer one over the other?

 Insectum7 wrote:
The whole discussion has been driven by comparing the two. Which do you think is more realistic? Or why do you prefer one over the other?

I dislike any system that arbitrarily has completely different mechanics. I could accept a return to the old wound chart and bespoken armor facings using Save values (2+ save on front, 3+ on sides, 4+ back or something like that), but I would prefer if the old AV system stays dead.

 Insectum7 wrote:


In fact it seems like you're saying that 40 has never been realistic, but also saying that the mechanics of prior 40K were more realistic, at the same time.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing contradictory about that. 40k has never been a realistic simulation-based wargame, and it's moved further and further from that over the years. They took out AV precisely because they didn't want that level of simulation in the game any more, they thought it was at odds with what they wanted the game to be. It's not like they just did pin the tail on the donkey and decided to get rid of AV because that's where the dart landed.

40k has been moving for a long time towards broader strategic considerations and away from "your dude is 1mm in this direction so you can hit my tank's back armor and blow me up rather than 1mm in that direction so my tank is completely invulnerable." It's fine that you don't like it. But you're not going to convince people who do like it by saying the game should be more simulation-based and talking about realism. Especially when as modeled it's clear that the tanks that do exist in 40k do have all sorts of vulnerabilities that small arms fire actually could realistically damage, because then the "realism" argument isn't even right.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


In fact it seems like you're saying that 40 has never been realistic, but also saying that the mechanics of prior 40K were more realistic, at the same time.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing contradictory about that. 40k has never been a realistic simulation-based wargame,

When we describe the benefits of that system. You say:

A: It's not realistic
B: It's more realistic but 40K isn't meant to be realistic
C: Despite having been more realistic in the past, 40K has never been realistic.

yukishiro1 wrote:
and it's moved further and further from that over the years. They took out AV precisely because they didn't want that level of simulation in the game any more, they thought it was at odds with what they wanted the game to be. It's not like they just did pin the tail on the donkey and decided to get rid of AV because that's where the dart landed.

40k has been moving for a long time towards broader strategic considerations and away from "your dude is 1mm in this direction so you can hit my tank's back armor and blow me up rather than 1mm in that direction so my tank is completely invulnerable." It's fine that you don't like it. But you're not going to convince people who do like it by saying the game should be more simulation-based and talking about realism. Especially when as modeled it's clear that the tanks that do exist in 40k do have all sorts of vulnerabilities that small arms fire actually could realistically damage, because then the "realism" argument isn't even right.

I believe you're still lacking a citation for that one.

 Dysartes wrote:
yukishiro, you were asked a couple of pages back for a citation on the claim that MBTs in the Iraq War were taken out of commission by small arms fire, a claim which you were using to argue that lasguns hurting Land Raiders was, in fact, realistic.

Such a citation has yet to be forthcoming - please provide it, or concede that your point was groundless.

To be fair it wasn't him it was me and I told you exactlly where the information came from its in afteraction reports available from the DoD and MoD on the report of costs of repairing heavy armoured vehicles. I'm genuine not sure how publicly available it is without paying them money.

But it broke down the reason the vehical was removed from active pool, damage inflicted, replacement parta and costs time to supply parts and time to fit and release to service the vehical.

I will pointout we aren't talking actually doing this with a lucky shot or two the figures were something nuts like 1000s of round impacts and esentially all they destroyed was optics leaving the vehical combat/mission killed due to the crew being unable to see where they were going/shooting.

Most of the time the vehicals where combat ready within 48 hours hence the only place this info is really captured is in these spending documents or probably classified action/mission reports.

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


In fact it seems like you're saying that 40 has never been realistic, but also saying that the mechanics of prior 40K were more realistic, at the same time.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing contradictory about that. 40k has never been a realistic simulation-based wargame,

When we describe the benefits of that system. You say:

A: It's not realistic
B: It's more realistic but 40K isn't meant to be realistic
C: Despite having been more realistic in the past, 40K has never been realistic.

Armor values isn't particularly realistic. It's probably more realistic than vehicles having wounds. But 40k isn't a realistic game and it's become less so over the years. Still don't see what you're having trouble with there?

Ice_can wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
yukishiro, you were asked a couple of pages back for a citation on the claim that MBTs in the Iraq War were taken out of commission by small arms fire, a claim which you were using to argue that lasguns hurting Land Raiders was, in fact, realistic.

Such a citation has yet to be forthcoming - please provide it, or concede that your point was groundless.

To be fair it wasn't him it was me and I told you exactlly where the information came from its in afteraction reports available from the DoD and MoD on the report of costs of repairing heavy armoured vehicles. I'm genuine not sure how publicly available it is without paying them money.

But it broke down the reason the vehical was removed from active pool, damage inflicted, replacement parta and costs time to supply parts and time to fit and release to service the vehical.

I will pointout we aren't talking actually doing this with a lucky shot or two the figures were something nuts like 1000s of round impacts and esentially all they destroyed was optics leaving the vehical combat/mission killed due to the crew being unable to see where they were going/shooting.

Most of the time the vehicals where combat ready within 48 hours hence the only place this info is really captured is in these spending documents or probably classified action/mission reports.

Ok. . . so to confirm, thousands of rounds were fired at this vehicle and the only damage it sustained was some broken optics, yes?

It didn't like. . . blow up and kill the occupants inside and throw shrapnel around. It could have still driven around if, for example, a heavily armored crewman decided to pop their head out and give commands or soemthing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


In fact it seems like you're saying that 40 has never been realistic, but also saying that the mechanics of prior 40K were more realistic, at the same time.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing contradictory about that. 40k has never been a realistic simulation-based wargame,

When we describe the benefits of that system. You say:

A: It's not realistic
B: It's more realistic but 40K isn't meant to be realistic
C: Despite having been more realistic in the past, 40K has never been realistic.

Armor values isn't particularly realistic. It's probably more realistic than vehicles having wounds. But 40k isn't a realistic game and it's become less so over the years. Still don't see what you're having trouble with there?

Ok, so it IS more realistic though. That's something.

and flanking a vehicle DOES have strategic value, yes? You just don't like it.

But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I believe you're still lacking a citation for that one.

Look at the models. They've got all sorts of exposed stuff that could clearly be damaged by small arms fire. Comms arrays out the wazoo, unprotected tracks, view slits, sponson weapons with vulnerable connections, etc etc. Those are the tanks they use in 40k. You could clearly damage bits of them using small arms fire. Could you penetrate through the armor of one? Probably not. But that's where the game being an abstraction comes in. We don't roll to see whether the lasgun hit the comms array or the tread or went through the view slit. We just roll to wound and assume that represents finding a spot vulnerable enough to be damaged by said weapon.

If you're talking about the real world, armed forces don't release that stuff and news stories can be hard to corroborate. The particular story I was remembering was about a Challenger tank in Basra getting its optics knocked out by insurgents using machine guns and RPGs and then running aground on a barrier and having to sit there disabled until help arrived; the version I read at the time said it was small arms fire that disabled the optics, then follow up RPG fire that stopped it from being able to move after it ran aground and exposed its underside, but some other versions seem to say it was an RPG, or even, in one case, a guided missile that took out the optics in the first place. They couldn't penetrate the armor so the occupants all survived until help arrived, but the tank itself was put out of commission by having its optics knocked out.

There are tons of examples from WW2-era tanks of small arms fire being able to damage them in multiple ways. If you look at 40k tank models, they definitely have elements that could be damaged by small arms fire.