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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I dunno, most depictions of HH combat is shown as being kinda... rank and file-ish. Like, large masses of troops in clusters which are in close proximity to other clusters. The density just feels appropriate to me

Dunno, most troop amounts given in the HH and 40k battles/campaigns will look positively spare when spread over the theatre they are supposed to be fighting over.

For me, I don't play current 40k with the suggested army sizes and table sizes because it looks horrible to me and it basically devolves into a run to the middle with little or not tactics, so this approach (or an even more crowded one) don't really appeal to me.

For almost every modern GW game, going with a larger table size than what they recommend is a good idea.

 Albertorius wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I dunno, most depictions of HH combat is shown as being kinda... rank and file-ish. Like, large masses of troops in clusters which are in close proximity to other clusters. The density just feels appropriate to me

Dunno, most troop amounts given in the HH and 40k battles/campaigns will look positively spare when spread over the theatre they are supposed to be fighting over.

For me, I don't play current 40k with the suggested army sizes and table sizes because it looks horrible to me and it basically devolves into a run to the middle with little or not tactics, so this approach (or an even more crowded one) don't really appeal to me.

These are my thoughts too. So many games these days look the equivalent of a group of eight year-olds playing football at school, where there is a just a mob group smashing together in the centre and no thoughts involved.

I did used to really like the old art in 1st edition space marine, the ones of hundreds of tiny marines fighting. But, just having two armies covering almost every spare cm of table (sorry.. inch of table now!) just doesn't leave any tactical agency to the player. No flanking, no defence in depth, no sneaking to objectives. I don't think the very dry delivery in the battle report helped things: "unit A destroyed unit B, then unit C destroyed unit A" - boy is something missing when you read them these days. Will have to wait of course and play, but I might do a write-up of things that can be inferred from the battle report, as there was quite a lot of interest in there.

 Pacific wrote:
I don't think the very dry delivery in the battle report helped things: "unit A destroyed unit B, then unit C destroyed unit A" - boy is something missing when you read them these days. Will have to wait of course and play, but I might do a write-up of things that can be inferred from the battle report, as there was quite a lot of interest in there.

That's my core concern as well, there was very little "unit a shot and unit b, unit b made most of its saves".


The granularity seems sorta wasted by the trajectory of every unit being perhaps too scale-able. I guess it makes sense if most units activations are just removing other units wholesale if the units are maxed out.

It's been mentioned before but one of the first house rules I could see is trying to get players to arm units the same way for sanity. There's granularity and then there's just making the whole thing a headache for no real gain/reason, especially considering some units don't even have any options anyway like the heavy sentinels, or units that are basically a or b options, like russes, I'm not sure anyone is jumping to give those heavy bolters on the front, so to my mind they're basically a and b given the turret options.

Once you get into the heavy tanks though it seems like it could get a bit silly.