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.

Here's another poll.

Let's set up the basics:
1. You're playing a 2000 point game. Could be casual, could be competitive
2. You're not playing an outlying faction or army (Imperial/Chaos knights, a full grot army, etc)
3. This is your opinion or ideal, so don't consider how much of your army is left in current/recent games
4. Assume your opponent is of equal skill and army comp to you

How much of your army, or how many of your models, should you still have on the table by the time the game is wrapped up?

I'm starting the poll at 50% but if you believe that it should be a higher %, let me know below.

I put down 30% but it think 40% and50% are all about equal for where a design should aim for in a table top game.

Unless the % left is part of the victory conditions, or important to the narrative in our Crusades & such, I don't care how much I have remaining on the table at the end.

Apple fox wrote:
I put down 30% but it think 40% and50% are all about equal for where a design should aim for in a table top game.

Yeah I feel like 30% is fair.

In a lot of games it feels like I end the game either tabled or with 10-20% of my force left and it's hard for me to find much enjoyment in that - even if I win! I'd personally like it if more of my army was on the table by the time the game was over. Y'know, to actually play with more of my minis than less XD

I selected 30%, but it's not exact. I'd rather there be too much left on the table at the end of the game than not enough. I'd be totally fine with a system where 90%+ was left on the table, as long as the units had been meaningfully interacting with and affecting each other all game.

I'm not a huge proponent of "immersion" but insofar as I do care about it I'm always endeavouring to imagine realistic conflicts... ie. ones that don't immediately lead to the timely annihilation of one side in a matter of in-game minutes.

I went for 30%, but anywhere between 25-40% seems fine to me. It's also fine to have some situations where the numbers are higher or lower, but on average 30% seems like a good ideal to aim for.

Just as important is the rate at which you lose units. One of the problems right now is how easy it is to lose entire units in one turn. This leads to situations where units have to completely hide so they don't get annihilated, then jump out and annihilate the enemy in one turn before being utterly destroyed in return. That kind of pure trading interaction doesn't make for a very compelling game to me. The only way GW seems to have been able to stop this is going too far the other way. The epitome of this is the CSM Terminator brick with T5, 5+++, -1 to wound and no rerolls to hit, can only be hit on 4+. That's just a stupid number of defensive buffs that makes the unit completely non-interactive for many armies. It's also much less terrifying if it doesn't go first because all but one of the buffs need to be applied in the CSM player's turn.

One way to try to reduce lethality might be to extend the necessity of actions in games. At the moment I feel like most armies that want to perform action-based secondaries just take a bunch of throwaway units to perform them. Things like Cryptothralls, Chaos Spawn, 10-man Poxwalkers, Servitors and so on. If the cost of performing actions was higher across the board and those actions were things you couldn't avoid doing, you'd actually need to think about sacrificing meaningful damage output in order to score points.

voted 40%, largely because I think there should be an army break point at around 50% (which from historical battles is still high, should really be around 33% but 50% is better for a game), with a morale mechanic that means you can go on a bit longer with a bit of luck

this also makes it easier to ignore one or two hard to kill things and kill the stuff around them.

but more importantly it also means that as the game nears the end you still have enough stuff to maybe turn the game instead of a near wipe out where after maybe the second turn you are really now just wasting time

Personally I feel that the end game isn't where you should be concerned about how much of the army has been lost. It's going to vary army to arm - eg a swarmy Tyranid army might expect to take heavier losses than an elite Custodes army.



What I feel is important is what Slipspace identified. It's not how much is left at the END of the game, but rather during the game itself. Like he raises the point, a big issue right now is how insanely lethal the game is, which is compounded by the turn system. Right now its possible to get insane alpha-strikes where by turn 2 one player can potentially wipe a significant percentage their opponents army off the table. Ergo where the game is effectively over within one or two turns and the remainder of the game one player is mopping up a victory and the other is struggling to just survive.


High lethality is a huge issue.


That to me is a bigger concern. How much both sides have on the last turn isn't the issue. What is the issue is how many turns both players have a chance of winning and how even that chance is. Ideally the first 3-4 turns should be a fairly even split between both players. It should be the last 5-6 turns where one player gains the upper hand through effective playing during the early part of the game.

That way both players are "in" the game for the win for the longest possible time; both have potential to win; both have a chance at winning and both also have a chance to threaten the other and conduct their own plans of battle.

Depends on the armies really.

Deathguard into Deathguard probably should leave 50% of both sides on the table.
Harlequins into Harlequins should leave none - and its not unreasonable everything is dead by turn 3 if both players just sprint directly into each other.

The issue in 9th (its better now I think than it was) is that seemingly every unit turned into a glasshammer. The only reliable protection is a LOS-blocking L-shaped ruin.

As a Guard player I NEED 30-40% of my army to be dead by the end of turn 2 so I have enough time to finish the game

Probably 20-30%. In my current Crusade league, it's typical for 1 or 2 models to be left on the field at the end of the game, even for the winning side.

For those seeking a bit more narrative feel, it may be useful to think of casualties as a mix of dead, wounded and broken/retreated. Some wargames specifically embrace this explanation.

In as much as a wargame represents forces vying for territory and objectives, it makes sense that the losing force would have fled the field.

Put another way, battles rarely end with both sides on the field and it's not usually because one side is entirely killed.

I think of it like this. How much survives to the end of the battle doesn't matter - its how you got there.

If every turn was on the knife edge of victory or defeat; if the game was flowing well and both sides were taking losses and pushing gains and if the win wasn't in the bag until the last few turns. If every fight is important etc.....

That I feel is where you make a great wargame because then its fun and challenging and engaging through all its turns of play.



It if you make it to the end with 2% or 20% or 80% of your army it doesn't matter, its the journey to that point which matters.
Maybe your army mostly survives and they toughed it out; or perhaps you're down to 1 model holding a key objective and you just manage to fend off the enemy for 1 more turn and you win; or they take down your last hero and its a valiant last stand.

Perhaps its two heroes or a hero and a trooper left on the table; each one trading blows to see who might outlast the other etc...

I really enjoy close games where there's only a few models left on either side of the field. However, for a narrative game I prefer it when casualties are 50-70% since many of the units will be returning for the next match (and hopefully without too many battlescars)

I think, by design, the target should be around 30% (or 33%). This would be more by points than models, since some units are large swarms of easily killed models and some are Knights.

Also, the most causalities should be happening in turns 2-3 with the tempo reducing as the amount of available firepower reducing as the game progresses.

Now some armies will vary based on their offense/defense mix, but the overall goal should be 30/33%.

I voted for 30%.
Then I could argue that it was a good fight with losses on both sides.

Depends how much of my opponent’s army is left I guess.

I don’t mind a particularly deadly game system, provided it’s not all one sided slaughter.

As ever, it’s been ages since I last played, so I can’t really venture further.

Really depends on so many factors, from the type of lists being played to how aggressive or defensive they are played.

As long as it isn't a one sided slaughter, then both sides could be wiped out to a few models.

too many factors. Everything from the build/ playstyle of both armies to the mission type, or even the playstyle of players would change how much is left on the table.

Same opinion as Tyran.
If I end the game with naff all left but gave my opponent a bloody nose in return or won via the objective then I'm ok with that. If my opponent has quite a large number of units left over then my goal changes from winning to spite where I will drag as much down as possible before being wiped out. It is entirely coincidental that I play Iron Warriors.

Very little! Love when it's a bloodbath and only a handful of dudes are left.

I've been playing a campaign recently (admittedly using ProHammer and not 9th ed) and the campaign started with 750 point armies and has gradually escalated up to 2000+ points.

What was interesting about this, and playing sub-2000 point games, was a collective realization among the players that maybe the sheer size of 2,000 point is a bit a problem and a self-reinforcing doom spiral.

With the IGOUGO turn structure, the more initial points you have on the board, and the more you can focus fire down the key elements of your opponent's army quickly, leaving one side (or occasionally both sides) in a slightly neuterd position, the more results feel lopsided. In the worst case, this can lead one side effectively being eliminated in the first turn or two of the game. Smaller games, with fewer units spread out on a relatively larger map has led to more interesting tactics emerging IMHO.

So I agree wholeheartedly with the posters here that have said it's not about what you have left at the end of the game per se, but rather how quickly and evenly you lose forces over the course of the game.

Lethality and playtime are also factors in this. If you're playing a 2,000 point game, you sort of need things to be really lethal to delete units off the board so you can get the game over with more quickly (assuming we're trying to stay under 3-hours). Losing a huge chunk of your army in the opening turn speeds up the rest of the turns considerably.

If the system takes steps to reduce lethality, but we're still playing at 2,000 points, the game is going to take longer.

Maybe the solution is that we should have much less lethality (so units stick around longer), and play smaller games with fewer units to allow more give and take and counter-plays to emerge.

The other idea is that you implement some sort of fielding limit mechanism (sort of a forced reserve system) where each player can at most only start with X units on the board and additional units are slowly brought in as timed reinforcements during the game. You still get to have a 2,000 point army, but you only start with 1,000 points on the table and the rest get dolled out in 500 point increments over the next few turns (or something). Obviously would need to tie into the mission design as well.

It does bother me to paint up 150+ orks or guardsman, and then just putting 20-50% of them back into my carrier before I even get out of my deployment zone. Why did I paint those again?

Set-up could have been a lot easier/quicker if I would just have had 1 model with a d20 and a d10 next to it I could reduce until it was my turn to play. Then, put the remaining amount of guys on the actual table.

I also find it really odd to be playing a "campaign" game, and at the end of game 1 the whole army was effectively made combat ineffective. However, Turn 2 everyone is fine or the unit was reinforced! That strains my ability to suspend disbelief. I am also a strong believer in Elif's point that not all models removed are dead, most are stunned, hiding, ran away, in shock, wounded but survive, etc. but all combat ineffective to totally fine is hard for me to swallow.

 Easy E wrote:
It does bother me to paint up 150+ orks or guardsman, and then just putting 20-50% of them back into my carrier before I even get out of my deployment zone. Why did I paint those again?

Set-up could have been a lot easier/quicker if I would just have had 1 model with a d20 and a d10 next to it I could reduce until it was my turn to play. Then, put the remaining amount of guys on the actual table.

Agreed, this is why I hate high lethality early in the game. It's too much removal of models that do nothing or get no chance to do anything save die. It was a huge reason I never build a skaven Old World army as, in the latter editions they needed legions of slave rats (not even clan rats*) which were mostly there to just soak up damage and do nothing but die. It's fun putting down a big army, but that army needs to have a chance to do something not just die.

Heck its why I like that Apoc rules in the last edition have a feature whereby damage is assigned at the end of the whole turn not as you do it. So units can be "killed" damage wise, but still get to perform an action that turn before they are killed off.




*though everyone sane used clan rats because slaves were a clan rat with a metal arm upgrade which meant they cost even more to buy

I play Genestealer Cult, so by the end of turn 3 i'm almost exterminated except in the rare cases that i survive and win, but those are rare cases.

 Overread wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
It does bother me to paint up 150+ orks or guardsman, and then just putting 20-50% of them back into my carrier before I even get out of my deployment zone. Why did I paint those again?

Set-up could have been a lot easier/quicker if I would just have had 1 model with a d20 and a d10 next to it I could reduce until it was my turn to play. Then, put the remaining amount of guys on the actual table.

Agreed, this is why I hate high lethality early in the game. It's too much removal of models that do nothing or get no chance to do anything save die. It was a huge reason I never build a skaven Old World army as, in the latter editions they needed legions of slave rats (not even clan rats*) which were mostly there to just soak up damage and do nothing but die. It's fun putting down a big army, but that army needs to have a chance to do something not just die.

Heck its why I like that Apoc rules in the last edition have a feature whereby damage is assigned at the end of the whole turn not as you do it. So units can be "killed" damage wise, but still get to perform an action that turn before they are killed off.




*though everyone sane used clan rats because slaves were a clan rat with a metal arm upgrade which meant they cost even more to buy

I very much feel this. I know the post is primarily about the -end- of the game, but you've made good points about 'during' the game as well. There's a big issue with a game where turn 1 decides whether you're playing with 2000 points against your opponent or 1500 points against your opponent. Alpha strikes, losing whole units before they get to do anything other than soak up fire... It's the major disadvantage of having such long range, deadly weapons across a game that is already quite deadly. But, on the flip side, trying to cram all your models behind cover and LOS blocking isn't very fun either.

What I've seen is, thanks to various adjustments to missions and cover, is that instead of losing 1/4th of your army turn 1, you just lose it turn 2 after you and your opponent do some maneuvering XD

Ideally turns 1-3 should be moving, posturing and trading blows. Turns 3-5 should be the meat of the battle where heavy damage is done to both sides with turns 5-6ish being where the final conclusions start to become evident.

 Overread wrote:
Ideally turns 1-3 should be moving, posturing and trading blows. Turns 3-5 should be the meat of the battle where heavy damage is done to both sides with turns 5-6ish being where the final conclusions start to become evident.

Indeed, but how do you present a set of rules that creates that situation? Night Fighting could do a bit of that. Slowing down movement of various models could also help. Limiting deep strike to turn 3 onwards, and lowering the lethality of weapons might do it as well, but generally people are going to favor things that will get up close, do a ton of damage as best as they can, and then sit on objectives.

I remember the previous editions and some of the main issues were simply with gunlines - the game didn't have a ton of objectives and too many people went with game modes where they set up their armies across from each other and shot each other till one person was combat ineffective. It was fast and simple, but it was also boring and disheartening.

In a way the problem is that the game has distinct close combat and gunline builds and wants to satisfy both. In many balanced games most armies are fairly even on both fronts so when you adjust shooting it affects both and the gains/losses from one being better than the other at a phase are marginal.

In 40K you can have armies that have no guns at all against armies that are all guns. That does become hard to balance


Sometimes you can do it by having objective play that forces armies forced (gunline can't sit back and shoot) and then dense line of sight blocking terrain and shorter standard ranges so that gunlines have to move forward and you edge toward less of a gun-line situation and more akin to trench warfare.

I voted 5%. imop, both players should have next to no models left at the end of the game. 9th edition does not decently support or encourage this. Players like myself want a rollercoaster ride when we play. we want a near win or a near loss and are pleased with a hard fought tie as long as the game is hard fought for both players. We want very memorable games. The final score is irrelevant. 9th does not give me this.