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.

30-40% is fine for a game that supposed to go 5 turns.

Interesting. No opinion really. Sometimes it's fun when armies get reduced heavily such that decisions become a little harder late game, kind of like a last stand or desperate gambit; but I also think it's fun when each player has quite a bit left to keep the pressure on until the bitter end.

I don't think I can state a percentage - far too many variables - but - more definitively - more than the other guy.....

25-50% after a full 5 turn game. Which lasts 2 hours, not 5 hours for 2 turns as it does now.

drbored wrote:

 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.

Plenty of rulesets create that effect.

Adeptus Titanicus (mostly 4-6 rounds per game), for example, mostly follows the pattern where first turn is jockeying for position without any real casualties, second turn sees a fierce storm of bullets as things open fire properly and start taking damage, third round stuff starts dying rapidly covering half of the table in mushroom clouds and turns 4-5 are remaining stragglers fighting tooth and nail for mission objectives.

Epic: Armageddon (mostly 3-4 rounds per game) has formations maneuvering into place on the first turn while long-range support like artillery and aircraft harry their counterparts on the other side, second round sees preparatory strikes to soften targets up for some key assaults that deal real damage and third round begins the full struggle for capturing victory conditions.

Both of these are AA systems, which by itself forces the players to consider when and where they are acting with their forces to take initiative and mitigate the chances their opponents get to hit back before their units affect the enemy. 40k doesn't really care about positioning either, so making unsupported spearhead attacks in the middle of a whole enemy line is less of a wasteful suicide than it should intuitively be because flanking and crossfires don't matter whereas, say, in E:A you're usually going to get crushed if you charge in without adequately bombarding the target and bringing supporting formations near your assault. 40k's problems are often traceable to its identity crisis in scale: it postures as a company level game with wide operational aims where in reality it is a platoon level brawl at a pub corner. The game is good for casual fun and creating occasional memorable heavy metal album cover moments where lots of people are crunched into a very small space duking it out, but it utterly fails in any maneuver warfare because the core system doesn't care about it.

While scenario design can help (forcing units to come on the field as staggered reserves, night fighting, more actions instead of violence...), the issue is fundamental to the core rules. As long as easy and unhindered shooting with big guns in perfect sync is the main interaction in an IGOUGO game that mechanically only cares about killing models (no suppression, no morale problems etc.), there isn't going to be very much emergent dynamism in the way the game plays.

On topic, I like a variety of results from zero to most of armies left, but feel that the ~30% remaining is a good design goal for a hard-fought battle (in games like 40k which are mostly about killing stuff).

Ideally, 100% of your army should be left at the end of a game, but failing that, at least 5% of your army, whilst 0% of your opponent's is on the field...

 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.

Yes, there should be space for some pre-engagement maneuver, otherwise the battle is basically a mosh pit.

As others have noted, the percentage depends upon the army. Tyranids in particular can be all or nothing.

Another consideration is the victory conditions. My group uses narrative campaigns where losses carry over. Thus, if my side is clearly losing, I'll execute a fighting withdrawal rather than just suicide everyone for the fun of it.

While realistic, it adds continued tension because even after it is obvious who is going to win, it can be quite a challenge to complete the pursuit. I remember a game not long ago where the Nids really got in on some Chaos Marines and we had a really neat end game where the Marines had to prioritize who would escape and who would die covering them.

Personally I prefer when the game ends with a few mauled units, a couple tanks with low hull points and maybe a character or two are scattered across the field. The last few turns really making the difference when you expend what firepower you have left but can't kill everything, can't get all those objectives you need to swing the game. But your opponent has roughly the same resources on their hands too.

Do you move that 3 man unit up to try and kill that last guy on the objective? It'll put them in the open and they will die if you fail, but it's the only unit left in range. It's all tense and desperate and it actually matters. What started as 50 or 100+ soldiers has boiled down to this tiny interaction in a field of corpses with scattered survivors watching from the ruins or the hulls of destroyed tanks.

That's how I like my field state to be by the end of the game and some of the best games i've had with mates really give that vibe.

This is absurd. Missions and opposition dictate really, and there are far more variables not accounted for. Also, is that as a winner or loser of that match?

See? Junk analysis.

 Just Tony wrote:
This is absurd. Missions and opposition dictate really, and there are far more variables not accounted for. Also, is that as a winner or loser of that match?

See? Junk analysis.

I think it's a question of how close to destruction both armies should fight, which I agree is a bit odd.

In the real world, armies do not fight to mutual extinction. "Last stands" are vanishingly rare, which is why we study them.

One can say that not all casualties are "dead" and are only wounded or demoralized, but what about the vehicles? Are they actually blown up or only taking a rest?

That being said, GW likes the whole "sacrifice your life for my victory point" mentality, so that's where we are.

40k isn't the real world though. Last stands are quite common in the lore, because most wars are existential ones.

The IoM isn't going to be taking Chaos Space Marines as prisioners of war, Space Marines don't even consider the concept of surrender, Orks don't even understand the concept of surrender and most of them struggle with the concept of retreat. And then you have Tyranids in which everything is kill or be eaten at its most primal.

The exceptions of course are the Tau, and only one way as the IoM rarely takes xenos prisioners.

I think the issue is that, once you're down to 20% casualties, you'd probably retreat and attack again once you can, not just keep fighting. But I don't think it's an issue for 40k. It's meant to be over the top. Last stands are cool.

Lore wise, depends on the faction. Tau, Necrons and Eldar would probably retreat (most of the time). Tyranids, Orks and Chaos probably wouldn't retreat (most of the time). Imperial factions? depends on the commander and subfaction and a coin flip.

 Tyran wrote:
40k isn't the real world though. Last stands are quite common in the lore, because most wars are existential ones.

The IoM isn't going to be taking Chaos Space Marines as prisioners of war, Space Marines don't even consider the concept of surrender, Orks don't even understand the concept of surrender and most of them struggle with the concept of retreat. And then you have Tyranids in which everything is kill or be eaten at its most primal.

The exceptions of course are the Tau, and only one way as the IoM rarely takes xenos prisioners.

Your first error here is conflating a war with a battle.

Games of 40K at the sizes typically enjoyed (ie. a few thousand points on a 6'x4') translate to a handful of units in an area as big as a couple city blocks. That does not depict a war, or even a warzone, it's just a skirmish.

Every faction in the game is in fact capable of withdrawing from an engagement of that size if it's not going well or achieving its aims.

Personally my most fun games have been the ones where there are half a dozen or fewer models still standing. From both sides.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

One can say that not all casualties are "dead" and are only wounded or demoralized, but what about the vehicles? Are they actually blown up or only taking a rest?

In a realistic scenario? abandoned.

When a force breaks and runs, vehicles tend to be left behind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Altruizine wrote:

Games of 40K at the sizes typically enjoyed (ie. a few thousand points on a 6'x4') translate to a handful of units in an area as big as a couple city blocks. That does not depict a war, or even a warzone, it's just a skirmish.

Every faction in the game is in fact capable of withdrawing from an engagement of that size if it's not going well or achieving its aims.

Point, but even then from what I recall about the battles in books, they usually were depicted as quite lethal even at the skirmish level.

Specially when it cames to melee. In 40k once two things get into melee it is assumed one will likely die, which is why classic editions had that sweeping advance rule (and IMHO 9th needs something similar). Melee units in general kinda need a high lethality potential.

Board sweeps are always entertaining.

If your list contains Sly Marbo, he should be the only thing left standing.

 Altruizine wrote:
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 second this (even though I do like the immersion if I can get it) but will also add that I'm not too bothered about how much is left at the end so long as we don't reach the end before turn 5 has played out. One player packing up all of their models at the end of turn 3 is a feel-bad moment for me.

One of the core issues imo is, that players are rarely rewarded by the game for having forces left after the battle.

Mechanically that should be a thing.

Not Online!!! wrote:
One of the core issues imo is, that players are rarely rewarded by the game for having forces left after the battle.

Mechanically that should be a thing.

It is a thing if you play narrative campaign games where your army (or parts of it) carry over into future games. Of course such systems often have to have built into them means to work around the fact that you don't want someone who loses a few games to end up so far behind others that they end up losing all the time. Similarly the gains have to be slight too otherwise the winners of a few get a run away.


That said I feel like rewarding for how much is left on the table can run the risk that its very beneficial to any "sit back and shoot" army and exceptionally good for any "shoot and redeploy" army. So Tau would utterly love it. Meanwhile close combat armies would hate it because they have to close distance and that means taking casualties.

I think its a neat thing and good players will maximise what they can, but as a core mechanic it would be tricky to put into place and have it meaningful

 Tyran wrote:

In a realistic scenario? abandoned.

When a force breaks and runs, vehicles tend to be left behind.

Only if they don't work. Otherwise, it's the ones without the vehicles that are left behind.

While I get the whole over-the-top aesthetic of 40k, if we're actually looking for something approaching sound tactics and battle management, you'd want to preserve your forces whenever possible. Space Marines in particular take a long time to train and recruit. Even with the Imperial Guard, veteran troops are something you want to preserve because that's where future leaders come from.

In our games, we typically look at the margin of losses as a component of determining the who won and by how much. A player who has gotten smacked hard, realizes that their objective is now out of reach, will wisely retreat if possible.

And to be clear, this isn't a "throw in the towel" game concession, the troops actually have to make it off the board, which can add a lot of tension to a game that was already pretty much over.

And I play Tyranids, some of my troops can even be spawned on the spot. Sound tactics for the Hive Mind is forcing highly lethal engagements.

The same is true for Daemons and (to a lesser degree) Orks. And Necron scarab lists.

 Tyran wrote:
And I play Tyranids, some of my troops can even be spawned on the spot. Sound tactics for the Hive Mind is forcing highly lethal engagements.

The same is true for Daemons and (to a lesser degree) Orks. And Necron scarab lists.

Yeah, but the Daemons can feel pain and humiliation, so if it's not going to be fun, they just leave.

Orks are highly disposable, but the Nobs and Boss types may want to live to see another day.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
25-50% after a full 5 turn game. Which lasts 2 hours, not 5 hours for 2 turns as it does now.

how the feth are you playing only 2 turns in 5 hours???

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
25-50% after a full 5 turn game. Which lasts 2 hours, not 5 hours for 2 turns as it does now.

how the feth are you playing only 2 turns in 5 hours???

Slowly obviously....

drbored wrote:
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.

8 models.

 BuFFo wrote:

8 models.

Golf clap.

 Slayer6 wrote:
Ideally, 100% of your army should be left at the end of a game, but failing that, at least 5% of your army, whilst 0% of your opponent's is on the field...

Uhhuh. Bad game design if that happens. At least more than as a fluke

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
This is absurd. Missions and opposition dictate really, and there are far more variables not accounted for. Also, is that as a winner or loser of that match?

See? Junk analysis.

I think it's a question of how close to destruction both armies should fight, which I agree is a bit odd.

In the real world, armies do not fight to mutual extinction. "Last stands" are vanishingly rare, which is why we study them.

One can say that not all casualties are "dead" and are only wounded or demoralized, but what about the vehicles? Are they actually blown up or only taking a rest?

That being said, GW likes the whole "sacrifice your life for my victory point" mentality, so that's where we are.

40K isn't whole armies standing up to each other. You can absolutely zoom in to the front lines in Ukraine and witness absolute devastation depending on who got the upper hand that day, but the horrors of war are irrelevant to a tabletop game.

It's whether or not the game is playable that is the concern not realism.