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.

Nurglitch wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

Huh? how else should combatants address each other?

Suppression, intimidation, outflanking, misdirection, logistical interdiction, exhaustion...

Outflanking and misdirection are strategies. You outflank an enemy and put them in a crossfire typically they surrender - it is still a removal strategy though - if they didn't surrender - they would be annihilated. 40k doesn't give you any kind of bonus for outflanking but typically just by proximity and access to targets it gives you an advantage. Suppression and morale ill give you - I'm pretty sure this would negatively impact melee though. Peaking your head out to shoot from a hole is a lot easier to convince a solider to do with arty shells exploding around them than running across the battle field to engage in melee - so ofc - this rule can't exist or melee would be impossible. Exhaustion as well - as I mentioned above - would negatively impact melee. Literally nothing can interfere with melee. Just look at all the ignore overwatch abilities in the game. Can you imagine a unit that had the ability to ignore the melee phase? imagine the WW1 trenches with the ignore overwatch ability. LOL The war would have been won pretty quickly by any army that mastered that ability.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.

I like the idea of creating things with the obscuring trait in general. For example, ork exhaust clouds, tyranid spore clouds or smoke launchers could turn those units into obscuring obstacles, allowing you to shoot them, but not anything behind them.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.

Hahahahahahahahaha what.

1) melee does not stop units from shooting NEARLY as much as in previous editions. Units in melee can still fire pistols, and non-INFANTRY units in melee can fire EVERYTHING that doesn't have blast.

2) I'm sorry, 40k is a magical fantasy universe where space travel exists, weapons that are on space ships that obliterate planets exist, and that magical fantasy is constructed such that most battle still takes place on land masses. The existence and relevance of Titans is WAY WAY WAY less "immersion-breaking" than the fact that melee combat is a thing. 40k has always been "Space Battles but we use swords and chainsaws." Go play any other science fiction game in the entire universe if you want melee to be basically irrelevant in favor of shooting.

3) can't walk through walls by default. Not in 9th edition. You have to move up and over walls.

4) Game of abstractions. Why does getting charged at mean your gun fires more shots? Why do I have to make a random test to see if I can charge you, and if I fail I just stand there? Why can you just walk away and I don't take any action to chop you up when you turn your back? It's a game.

40k will "move away from melee" when 1/2 of the units in the game stop being melee units. 7/9 editions melee combat has been suboptimal. Cry harder.

Blackie wrote:Everything can hurt everything is a misconception.

Not a misconception, but a statement regarding the changes of the system. A bolter had zero chance of doing anything against a Land Raider or a Monolith, and it took a Meltagun or better to do anything to them than annoy them for a while. Now it's no longer a zero chance, but a small chance. So "can" is perfectly appropriate. "Likely" is a very different story, but "Unlikely" is still better than "Impossible" depending on the situation.

Overall, I do agree with the premise that at some point just providing the possibility is a counter-productive with how they largely kept the weapons the same.

Xenomancers wrote:I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.

Giving players like you hope is actually a nerf to bolters. Just introducing the idea that its going to get something done opens up more poor choices for the player. In other words, I WANT you shooting bolters at my tough stuff even though its mathematically superior to previous editions.

We can destroy the world 5 times over with out nuclear aresenal but we don't because it is impractical. The same impracticallity exist in 40k. We battle with small units because we want to take territory - no destroy it. Titans...much like battleships and aircraft carriers dominate the battlefield but we still have infantry doing there thing. On the why should units shoot at units when they get charged - the real question is why does your movement double or even triple because you are attacking in melee? Charges are literally a free move - it is a dumb mechanic and it shouldn't even exist. The issues I am speaking about are just about hoops jumped through to make melee good. Sure it needed some help but it's gotten to an absurd point. melee needs to go back to being high risk high reward or needing a strategy to pull it off effectively. Not auto include and unstoppable.

In the history of 40k the game has actually always been dominated by melee. So not really sure what you are speaking about suboptimal.

Titans with stomp attacks - melee WK. Superfriends. GK/BA in 5th (6th was basically a 5th clone) 4th eddition my marines were getting slaughters by DE in melee but I don't really remember too much from then. So from 5th to now it has always been melee. 8th was smash captains / spear stars / ogran stars/ melee DS bombs...what edition are you really referring to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Blackie wrote:Everything can hurt everything is a misconception.

Not a misconception, but a statement regarding the changes of the system. A bolter had zero chance of doing anything against a Land Raider or a Monolith, and it took a Meltagun or better to do anything to them than annoy them for a while. Now it's no longer a zero chance, but a small chance. So "can" is perfectly appropriate. "Likely" is a very different story, but "Unlikely" is still better than "Impossible" depending on the situation.

Overall, I do agree with the premise that at some point just providing the possibility is a counter-productive with how they largely kept the weapons the same.

Xenomancers wrote:I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.

Never played warmachine except a few times just jacking around. It is known in that game that shooting is pretty weak from what I have been told. Could be worse isn't an excuse IMO.

"The same impracticallity exist in 40k."

Not really. There are definitely times where WMDs would be superior option. Especially vs movie marines. Why bother fighting them?

SecondTime wrote:
"The same impracticallity exist in 40k."

Not really. There are definitely times where WMDs would be superior option. Especially vs movie marines. Why bother fighting them?

Can't we assume if they are sending ground forces instead of using WMD that there is a viable reason? Just because you can destroy a planet doesn't mean youll ever do it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"The same impracticallity exist in 40k."

Not really. There are definitely times where WMDs would be superior option. Especially vs movie marines. Why bother fighting them?

Can't we assume if they are sending ground forces instead of using WMD that there is a viable reason? Just because you can destroy a planet doesn't mean youll ever do it.

I don't assume anything. If marines were indeed these world killers that the novels indicate, eradicating them would be priority one. Specifically, killing all the gene seed of a specific chapter. They are so small in number, that I don't need to wreck a whole planet. Not that factions like Necrons or Eldar would even care.

Ground troops are sent in because that's the game that GW is trying to sell. But sometimes the Dresden approach is the way to go instead. Plus, not all WMDs are the same.

You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

 Charistoph wrote:

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.

It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.

Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

Sounds like a real battle to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.

It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.

What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like a real battle to me.

Generally "real" battles aren't very fun.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

Sounds like a real battle to me.

does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

Sounds like a real battle to me.

does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?

Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.

SecondTime wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

Sounds like a real battle to me.

does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?

Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.

Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)

Tyel wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like a real battle to me.

Generally "real" battles aren't very fun.

Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.

"would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game"

I don't think its intentional. People use what's on hand. A lot of terrain still doesn't block LoS even in 9th.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

Sounds like a real battle to me.

does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?

Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.

Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)

If it were up to me we could blow up buildings in game and terrain would be randomly generated after you deploy your units to emulate the encounter battle aspect of the game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)

Totally agree with this. As is positioning in 40k feels a little lackluster. This would definitely change that. Makes threat ranges far more important to consider.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

Sounds like a real battle to me.

does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?

Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.

Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)

If it were up to me we could blow up buildings in game and terrain would be randomly generated after you deploy your units to emulate the encounter battle aspect of the game.

yeah, blowing up terrain is one that is also pretty high on the list of things i wish was in the game. Make my opponent spend a turn taking down the ruin my tank is hiding behind if he wants to get to it, that would reduce lethality. However, i would only allow certain weapons to damage terrain. A demolisher cannon or siege drills makes sense that it would raze a building, a lascannon or melta gun a bit less IMO (not to even mention shuriken/lasguns).

And i don't think the random terrain would work that well but it could be interesting to explore, i feel it wouldn't be that realistic since deployment would mean pretty much nothing and the game could be decided on a coin flip.

I could see it work in a game where ranges are wayy shorter (like, nothing able to shoot from one deployment to another) and with alternating activations.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.

I think my major clash with what I'm going to call the "verisimilitude" wing of the forum is that no, I don't really find 40k to be a wargame. It doesn't, hasn't and never will simulate what real war is like.

Its a game. Its a game you can think deeply about (whatever people say) and a game with cool models, with fluff and everything else - but its still a game.

I guess I can relate a bit. I used to think WHFB did have a degree of verisimilitude. Part of the draw (going back to the 90s though, when special rules and so on were far rarer beyond hero-hammer) was the idea that this is what medieval style battles would be like, but if you had wizards and monsters etc too. I think the game eventually imploded in part because that fiction was impossible to maintain. By 8th edition I feel there was nothing approaching a real battle - instead it was "dance out of charge arcs with your flying wizard while 6 dicing dwellers". Having multiple immaculately painted blocks of infantry with banners and musicians became actively *bad*.

But I never felt that with 40k. Maybe its just the lack of imagination - but "how would genetically modified super humans really fight undead robots" just produces a "???" response.
There is perhaps an itch of "this should represent the fluff" - but you have the inevitable problem of "if everything is awesome nothing is".

If 40k was *realistic* it would largely just consist of "due to superior logistics I've concentrated 3 times as many forces against you. Do you want to fight this doomed position or run away? Okay you run away. Do you manage to get away or are you forced to surrender? Now, repeat this process dozens of times and determine how that bit of the campaign went".

You'd never roll a dice to fire a boltgun in anger. It would all be a formality.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.

Sounds like a real battle to me.

does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?

Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.

Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)

If it were up to me we could blow up buildings in game and terrain would be randomly generated after you deploy your units to emulate the encounter battle aspect of the game.

yeah, blowing up terrain is one that is also pretty high on the list of things i wish was in the game. Make my opponent spend a turn taking down the ruin my tank is hiding behind if he wants to get to it, that would reduce lethality. However, i would only allow certain weapons to damage terrain. A demolisher cannon or siege drills makes sense that it would raze a building, a lascannon or melta gun a bit less IMO (not to even mention shuriken/lasguns).

And i don't think the random terrain would work that well but it could be interesting to explore, i feel it wouldn't be that realistic since deployment would mean pretty much nothing and the game could be decided on a coin flip.

I could see it work in a game where ranges are wayy shorter (like, nothing able to shoot from one deployment to another) and with alternating activations.

Just an idea about the random terrain - I would just say since we aren't choosing the battlefield - it shouldn't be ideal for ether side. Random is the best way to do this IMO. In an RTS (similar to a table top battle) part of the skill of the game is getting the opponent to fight you in an advantages position for you. So maps have a varied amount of terrain - some a tight spaces - some elevated - some wide open. Seriously I just don't understand how people can be so adamant about (tactics) but want the game to go against real military tactics like...taking high ground - moving in force - concentrating fire - fighting retreat (fallback and shoot). It really is - people wanting to fight with swords hating on units that have guns for the most part.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Cyel wrote:


It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.

What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.

In WM&H, sure.

In WH40K, roll for first turn and then luck in dice or being rules-lawyered on some minor omission.

Someone in this or similar thread used a comparison that I like a lot. WM&H is like fencing, judging distances, estimating when to shorten said distance or when to stay away. You get at least one and often 2 turns before armies are even in range, so you choose your ground carefully. WH40K is like two guys hitting each other with hammers. No dodging, no parrying, no timing, pure DMG/sec comparison. Who is luckier to knock the other out first, wins (by a lucky hit or just having a better hammer/harder head).

 Jidmah wrote:
I like the idea of creating things with the obscuring trait in general. For example, ork exhaust clouds, tyranid spore clouds or smoke launchers could turn those units into obscuring obstacles, allowing you to shoot them, but not anything behind them.

Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)

Totally agree with this. As is positioning in 40k feels a little lackluster. This would definitely change that. Makes threat ranges far more important to consider.

Try playing index 8th ed 40K in epic scale on a 6X4 table where all the normal ranges are halved for movement and shooting. we play epic that way and it really changes the way the game plays. maneuver, range, unit choices all change dramatically. some units you would never take in 28mm become indispensable

yeah, blowing up terrain is one that is also pretty high on the list of things i wish was in the game. Make my opponent spend a turn taking down the ruin my tank is hiding behind if he wants to get to it, that would reduce lethality. However, i would only allow certain weapons to damage terrain. A demolisher cannon or siege drills makes sense that it would raze a building, a lascannon or melta gun a bit less IMO (not to even mention shuriken/lasguns).

And i don't think the random terrain would work that well but it could be interesting to explore, i feel it wouldn't be that realistic since deployment would mean pretty much nothing and the game could be decided on a coin flip.

They had a level of this in previous editions, one of the few good things in 6th edition was the mysterious terrain rules. but prior to that bunkers, and obstacles could be reduced from immobile blocking LOS vehicles with an AV/transport capacity and impassible terrain with an AV to area terrain ruins and rough ground.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Just an idea about the random terrain - I would just say since we aren't choosing the battlefield - it shouldn't be ideal for ether side. Random is the best way to do this IMO. In an RTS (similar to a table top battle) part of the skill of the game is getting the opponent to fight you in an advantages position for you. So maps have a varied amount of terrain - some a tight spaces - some elevated - some wide open. Seriously I just don't understand how people can be so adamant about (tactics) but want the game to go against real military tactics like...taking high ground - moving in force - concentrating fire - fighting retreat (fallback and shoot). It really is - people wanting to fight with swords hating on units that have guns for the most part.

Thats why i said i would rather see it with a global range reduction, so that the bolded part actually was a part of the game. IMO, movement to adapt to the map/opponent's action is the most interesting part in a wargame but 40k throws it all out the window with the sheer number of guns that effectively don't have a range.

Making bolters 12", lascannons 24" would already help a lot. I've literally never measured the range for most of my guns because getting in range is trivial.

Once basic movement to get into firing range is added to the game, add Alternating activations to really be able to react to your opponent, then add in various "actions" you could do like going to ground, suppressive fire, smoke grenades, etc.

Tyel wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.

I think my major clash with what I'm going to call the "verisimilitude" wing of the forum is that no, I don't really find 40k to be a wargame. It doesn't, hasn't and never will simulate what real war is like.

Its a game. Its a game you can think deeply about (whatever people say) and a game with cool models, with fluff and everything else - but its still a game.

I guess I can relate a bit. I used to think WHFB did have a degree of verisimilitude. Part of the draw (going back to the 90s though, when special rules and so on were far rarer beyond hero-hammer) was the idea that this is what medieval style battles would be like, but if you had wizards and monsters etc too. I think the game eventually imploded in part because that fiction was impossible to maintain. By 8th edition I feel there was nothing approaching a real battle - instead it was "dance out of charge arcs with your flying wizard while 6 dicing dwellers". Having multiple immaculately painted blocks of infantry with banners and musicians became actively *bad*.

But I never felt that with 40k. Maybe its just the lack of imagination - but "how would genetically modified super humans really fight undead robots" just produces a "???" response.
There is perhaps an itch of "this should represent the fluff" - but you have the inevitable problem of "if everything is awesome nothing is".

If 40k was *realistic* it would largely just consist of "due to superior logistics I've concentrated 3 times as many forces against you. Do you want to fight this doomed position or run away? Okay you run away. Do you manage to get away or are you forced to surrender? Now, repeat this process dozens of times and determine how that bit of the campaign went".

You'd never roll a dice to fire a boltgun in anger. It would all be a formality.

It wouldn't be fun if the scales weren't balanced. Or youd have to make special scenarios with different objectives for each side. Survive the meat grinder for 5 turns and you win (starship troopers style). Or Break through...get a particular unit through an ambush. That kind of stuff. Even armies meeting on the field is just fun though. In general historically armies that weren't well matches wouldn't fight - so it make sense that we only battle in more even situations.

Anyways - my point remains the same. The game has too many silly rules and game design elements fighting to make melee viable while ignoring the fact melee is fundamentally inferior to range. It's why battleships fell to aircraft carriers. It's why the gun made the sword irrelevant. This game literally declares that battleships and carriers will fight within 15 miles of each other and the battleship gets to have twice the movement speed...just because. It fundamentally breaks any real strategy for what should be effective.

Hecaton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I like the idea of creating things with the obscuring trait in general. For example, ork exhaust clouds, tyranid spore clouds or smoke launchers could turn those units into obscuring obstacles, allowing you to shoot them, but not anything behind them.

Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

yes, and even this isnt opressive because some of the more advanced-tech faction's elite units have goggles that can see through various type of grenades (basic smoke, nanomachine smokes, etc)

Cyel wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Cyel wrote:


It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.

What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.

In WM&H, sure.

In WH40K, roll for first turn and then luck in dice or being rules-lawyered on some minor omission.

I do agree that WarmaHordes is a more tactically focused game where minute placement, precise 2d LOS and exact threat ranges are incredibly important. Saying that, war hammer is a different game and tactically there are different priorities. I like both games. When I play warhammer my prioritization is on risk/resource management in the form of deciding what units should be doing what for any given mission (at least now in 9th) . I am also trying to entice or play my oponenet into targeting units that I don't want them to... again with a focus on the mission. 8th was a little worse for this but I really do think 9th has brought a lot of tactical decision making back t othe game.

Saying all of this, WarmaHordes is definitely MORE of a tactical game of chess then 40k but saying 40k has no tactics is just not true either. I like playing both. Sometimes I am in the mood for a game that cares about the minutia that gives little room for errors and when thats the case I play warmahrodes. Sometimes I want to play a game that feels a little bit more story oriented, casual, with room for some error and less, teeth grindy, 2dimensionalm intense tactical decisions. Then I play 40k.

I think their is room in the gaming world for both approaches to games and I honestly wouldn't want either to be exactly like the other.