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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

Small units that get crushed in Ukraine are victims of circumstances beyond their control, not chess pieces hoping one of them lives to get the +1 victory point for having presence in a table quarter.

A commander who "wins" but loses 70 percent of his troops will have a very short career.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

Small units that get crushed in Ukraine are victims of circumstances beyond their control, not chess pieces hoping one of them lives to get the +1 victory point for having presence in a table quarter.

A commander who "wins" but loses 70 percent of his troops will have a very short career.

Depends on the mission. Then Commander Robert Ryder, for example, lead Operation Chariot, a raid on the dry docks at St Nazaire in WWII that resulted in 63% casualties for his force. He received the highest medal for gallantry available to him and continued to have a long career in the RN.

I think 40k battles are more likely to represent these do-or-die missions, where war-shaping consequences could result from the actions of a dozen or hundred soldiers. The forlorn hopes, desperate rearguards, daring commando raids, etc.

 Haighus wrote:


Depends on the mission. Then Commander Robert Ryder, for example, lead Operation Chariot, a raid on the dry docks at St Nazaire in WWII that resulted in 63% casualties for his force. He received the highest medal for gallantry available to him and continued to have a long career in the RN.

I think 40k battles are more likely to represent these do-or-die missions, where war-shaping consequences could result from the actions of a dozen or hundred soldiers. The forlorn hopes, desperate rearguards, daring commando raids, etc.

If every game ends with 70 percent casualties, then everyone is "special," which means no one is.

Remember that Space Marine chapters do not have limitless manpower. If they expend 70 percent per engagement, they will run out of troops rather quickly, regardless of how 'crucial' these missions are.

Speaking of the Brits, Evelyn Waugh (a Royal Marine during WW II) later satirized the Special Operations Executive as lusting to find new and creative ways to kill off their troops.

A 40k game doesn't have to represent "typical" engagements, thus leaving the high casualty numbers safely atypical. Imo a standard 40k game represents the sort of catastrophe that Space Marines try to avoid, but if they must engage, they must engage.

I went with 50%, because even though it's not meant to be a hard simulation, I'm still on the "more simulation!" side of things, and 50% casualties is still massive by almost any historical metric.

I'm not committed to that as a hard number, though. Some games could feature total loses, but regularly going below 1/3 of an army remaining just starts to feel silly. (and is pretty normal in wargames)

 0beron wrote:
I went with 50%, because even though it's not meant to be a hard simulation, I'm still on the "more simulation!" side of things, and 50% casualties is still massive by almost any historical metric.

I'm not committed to that as a hard number, though. Some games could feature total loses, but regularly going below 1/3 of an army remaining just starts to feel silly. (and is pretty normal in wargames)

As of when I'm writing this, a clear majority want at least 30% to be on the table, which makes sense.

A lot depend on how and why people play. When I was doing pick-up games at the hobby shop, winning was all that mattered, though obviously winning soundly with most of your force intact was desired.

With the passage of time, I don't play nearly as often, and when I do, my group likes to put together narrative campaigns where force preservation is an important consideration. Troops lost in one battle can't be used later, so (as I noted above) even after the game has been decided in terms of victory points, we can still have fun trying to shape future campaigns. For example, the losing side might make one last attempt to kill the opposing commander or finish off a squad. The winning side might try to complete the destruction of the loser's force, crippling them for the next game.

So while both styles have their place, I do think that a rules system that pretty much requires mutual destruction isn't designed very well.