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.

Yep and at the same time 20 guardsmen should have no ability what so ever at taking down something like a Phoenix Lord, or the Swarmlord or a Mega-boss

And yet in the game they can. Lore wise that would be a one in a trillion or more situation that would happen. However we all know its just a regular *insert game night day* battle.

It again swings round to the fact that at its core, 40K isn't trying to simulate. It's trying to be a game pure and simple in the very same way that Chess isn't a simulation of battle.



It's very different to things like historical or WorldWar games where often they are trying to be both a wargame and a simulation of real word events.

I think some of the Epic Armageddon designer's notes or an article around that time said that a single round of combat between two Epic detachments roughly represented a whole 40k battle, that seems about right to me

 Overread wrote:
Honestly whenever you try and argue what the game on tabletop simulates it hits a brick wall. Fundamentally it doesn't represent anything and people head-cannon all kinds of arguments.

Consider that you have artillery, aircraft, rifles, snipers, close combat, infantry, tanks all squished into a space on terrain that basically often simulates a couple of buildings (which oddly enough are about the size of a few garden sheds or a very small house).


Does one model represent one thing; or a dozen; or a thousand? Is that even uniform?

It's a mishmash because its a game not a simulation. You can head canon everything from it being smallscale skirmishes up to huge wars

Yeah. This is part of why my preferred versions of 40k skew towards smaller armies. A skirmish between 4 or 5 squads and a couple of vehicles per side feels like a skirmish between 4 or 5 squads and a couple of vehicles per side. Whereas a 2k game of 10th edition feels like it's trying to either be a zooomed in snapshot of a larger battle or a condensed abstraction of a larger battle. Having three riptides and 6 leman russes duking it out in the Walmart parking lot is a bit wonky, and the amount of detail in the mechanics for representing each member of a squad just feels out of place at that point.

This is why I'm a campaign player. Now matter the size of the board or the size of an army, a single game is NEVER more than a battle.

A campaign is the war.

 Overread wrote:
Yep and at the same time 20 guardsmen should have no ability what so ever at taking down something like a Phoenix Lord, or the Swarmlord or a Mega-boss

And yet in the game they can. Lore wise that would be a one in a trillion or more situation that would happen. However we all know its just a regular *insert game night day* battle.

It again swings round to the fact that at its core, 40K isn't trying to simulate. It's trying to be a game pure and simple in the very same way that Chess isn't a simulation of battle.



It's very different to things like historical or WorldWar games where often they are trying to be both a wargame and a simulation of real word events.

I actually really don’t like this position, it makes 40K feel more cartoon like and silly. When I think a keypart of the grimdark is just that the warfare is nasty, brutal and any lucky moment can swing things.
It’s unlikely that the swarm lord gets felled by a squad of guard that get caught off guard, out of position or just damn unlucky. But in position with plasma or melta, good training and little luck puts one of those shots through something important and the swarm lord goes down.
Space marines I think just amplify it, they are not supposed to be near unstoppable badasses, but there training armor and weapons push luck in there favour more often than without everything.
It’s one reason I liked warmachine as a replacement for 40K, it’s got that and even some of the lowest units could change the battle with some a little luck and good positioning. (Now everything I used to read about how warmachine tables supposedly looked is what 40K tables look like now. )
Infinity game I rember was an Asura holding a side of the table against all odds, position in cover and able to stand on an objective long enough for me to take the other side.
40K sorta just doesn’t have that like other games do, but it seems really good at trying to make it seem like it does with its heroes and everything.

I also had been thinking that ties into it, one thing I noticed in 40K especially is that so many players don’t like the first turns being wasted. But I think so many of the other games I enjoy the first turns being wasted is so important for positioning and movement, even if there is so little action compared to the turns after.

One might argue that just because the first turns aren't filled with casualties, they aren't being wasted.

In my experience, players who try (and usually fail) to maximize their damage in turn 1 tend to lose the game right then and there.

Charax wrote:
I think some of the Epic Armageddon designer's notes or an article around that time said that a single round of combat between two Epic detachments roughly represented a whole 40k battle, that seems about right to me

I seem to remember reading this in some 1990s/early 00s White Dwarf.

Charax wrote:
I remember having conversations like this back in the 90s

Broadly speaking, you have "Raider" factions and you have "Massed Battle" factions

Raider factions are Eldar (all types), Genestealer cultists, awakening Necrons, the Leagues, things like that

Already I would disagree...

Eldar have titans, they fight pitch battles. GC take over a worlds military and the scale of insurgency in just one country in the modern day involves tens of thousands of fighters.

I would think of it more what scale of forces can a faction field.

Platoon - a few dozen men. Custodies max deployment size outside of the webway war, and even then they would have operated in small groups. Harlequins.
Company - 100-200 men. Max Grey knight deployment size to fight something like a primarch, a lot of SoB orders.
Battalion - 3-6 companies. Typical max single chapter deployment, a larger SoB order. Dark Elder could do this if they really cared? Knight order perhaps. A full precint of Arbites might be this though I would say they are company size.
Brigade - Something like a CSM and mortal allies raiding force. Votann.
Division - would a titan legion deployment be considered this? Prob a max Elder deployment outside of a craftworld invasion. Wonder if Necrons tend to muster this
Army - Multiple divisions. Stealer Cult, Imperial Guard, Ad Mech, Orks, Nids, Tau.

Miss anyone who isn't a navy, or kill team sized force?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Charax wrote:
I think some of the Epic Armageddon designer's notes or an article around that time said that a single round of combat between two Epic detachments roughly represented a whole 40k battle, that seems about right to me

I seem to remember reading this in some 1990s/early 00s White Dwarf.

Epic 40k (3rd edition) and repeated for 4th. A firefight between two formations was meant to be a 40k battle, though perhaps more with the custom formations in 3rd.

In terms of games GW has done
Board games (a few guys)
Kill team (a squad)
500 point games/original rogue trader (a platoon)
40k 2nd ed (company)
Modern 40k sits between company and Battalion (3-6 companies)
Epic A Battalion
Epic 2nd ed half way between Battalion and brigade
Old GW card and counter games like Armageddon or horus heresy at army(s) level

Then stuff like BFG which I suppose would be division+ level in a typical 1500 point game. Don't know much about naval classifications!

Personally I think that 40k should be based on Company sized fights and missions should be based on missions Company sized formations would do.

In addition as a random thought on that every battle is a fair (unrealistic) fight. Maybe fight two games at once. Agree on the points value for both battles together and then Allocate Points how you want. Build an army for each game using those points. I.e. Game A = 1027pts and Game B = 2973pts. Will you weaken one side to strengthen another. What happens when the defensive force you made for your weaker force is greater than your opponent and your aggressive stronger force is weaker than your opponents. When I say two battles at once I mean two tables/battlefields. When one side has there movement phase in Game A the other has there movement phase in Game B.

Just a fun thought.

Tygre wrote:
Personally I think that 40k should be based on Company sized fights and missions should be based on missions Company sized formations would do.

What exactly is a company sized formation of, well, anything besides Marines (loyalist) & Guard?

ccs wrote:

Tygre wrote:
Personally I think that 40k should be based on Company sized fights and missions should be based on missions Company sized formations would do.

What exactly is a company sized formation of, well, anything besides Marines (loyalist) & Guard?

I get your point. I was thinking about formations equivalent to IRL company size. So a points value equivalent to ~100 to ~150 guard. Roughly 3 infantry platoons + supporting elements and command. That might be too low for some, but that is my preference.

Tygre wrote:
Personally I think that 40k should be based on Company sized fights and missions should be based on missions Company sized formations would do.

See, I think it's a trillion times better when

40k is based on small patrols WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on tactical battlegroups WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on Company sized battles WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on massive, multi-detachment armies WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.

You could give me a PERFECT game where I play only at the Company Level and it would SUCK compared to the choices that we have right now.

Variety is ALWAYS better than limiting player choice, even if it means we never get perfect balance.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Tygre wrote:
Personally I think that 40k should be based on Company sized fights and missions should be based on missions Company sized formations would do.

See, I think it's a trillion times better when

40k is based on small patrols WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on tactical battlegroups WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on Company sized battles WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on massive, multi-detachment armies WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.

You could give me a PERFECT game where I play only at the Company Level and it would SUCK compared to the choices that we have right now.

Variety is ALWAYS better than limiting player choice, even if it means we never get perfect balance.

Would not a couple of different, more focused games be better than one game that stretches too hard?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

Tygre wrote:
Personally I think that 40k should be based on Company sized fights and missions should be based on missions Company sized formations would do.

See, I think it's a trillion times better when

40k is based on small patrols WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on tactical battlegroups WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on Company sized battles WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
40k is based on massive, multi-detachment armies WHEN THAT'S WHAT PLAYERS WANT.

You could give me a PERFECT game where I play only at the Company Level and it would SUCK compared to the choices that we have right now.

Variety is ALWAYS better than limiting player choice, even if it means we never get perfect balance.

Would not a couple of different, more focused games be better than one game that stretches too hard?

No, because the best game is the escalation campaign that starts small and grows. If you aren't interested in playing a 500-3k point escalation campaign, that's fine. But maybe stop making suggestions that make it impossible for people who think that's the best way to play to get what they want out of the game.

Also no because GW can't be counted to not make a stupid mistake like keeping models from game A from being usable in game B. The stupidest thing about Horus Heresy as a game ISN'T that it doesn't include Xenos (though that's a close second)- it's that awesome HH models can't also be used in 40k. GW could make a PILE of money of me if I could play a 30k Admech army in 40k, or use a Kharon Pattern Acquisitor. I can't imagine I'm the only person who feels this way.

Also no because 4 games instead of one would screw the release schedule.

Also no because every time a dex drops, updating four games instead of one is the definition of stupid. Just look at Boarding Actions: every dex that dropped since Boarding Actions book has undermined that rules set.

Also no because I don't want to buy four rulebooks just to make you slightly more comfortable.

You can dip into multiple systems for one campaign-Kill Team and 40k for example.

I do agree that I wouldn't trust GW to do it well (or at a reasonable price), but that's not the same as saying it can't or shouldn't be done.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can dip into multiple systems for one campaign-Kill Team and 40k for example.

I do agree that I wouldn't trust GW to do it well (or at a reasonable price), but that's not the same as saying it can't or shouldn't be done.

Well if we're going to remove GW incompetence from the equation, why not just hope for GW to make one game that can be played at four sizes so that no one has to buy four rule books?

Right?

I mean, you'd rather dream of GW making four perfect games instead of one, so that even if you get what you want we all spend four times as much money on rules that last for 3 years?

And speaking of which: expecting all four of your hypothetical four game systems to drop at the same time? Or "Oh, the 1k version of the game is out... But that's all I've got until 6 months when the 500 point book comes out? Maybe next year the 2k book. And then for maybe a year I have all four at the same time?

Seriously dude. This ain't an argument you can win.

Fix whatever you think is wrong with 10th and we've already got a game that works well enough at four sizes. 9th did it even better before Boarding Actions screwed up 500 point games. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't mind Boarding Actions.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can dip into multiple systems for one campaign-Kill Team and 40k for example.

I do agree that I wouldn't trust GW to do it well (or at a reasonable price), but that's not the same as saying it can't or shouldn't be done.

Well if we're going to remove GW incompetence from the equation, why not just hope for GW to make one game that can be played at four sizes so that no one has to buy four rule books?

Right?

I mean, you'd rather dream of GW making four perfect games instead of one, so that even if you get what you want we all spend four times as much money on rules that last for 3 years?

And speaking of which: expecting all four of your hypothetical four game systems to drop at the same time? Or "Oh, the 1k version of the game is out... But that's all I've got until 6 months when the 500 point book comes out? Maybe next year the 2k book. And then for maybe a year I have all four at the same time?

Seriously dude. This ain't an argument you can win.

Fix whatever you think is wrong with 10th and we've already got a game that works well enough at four sizes. 9th did it even better before Boarding Actions screwed up 500 point games. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't mind Boarding Actions.

There's an area between incompetent and hypercompetent.

I don't think 40k should be fixed at 2,000 points, no more no less. I think it can reasonably play at 500 to around 3,000 and still be fine.

But if I'm playing a game that's the equivalent of 200 points in 40k?
It needs a lot more detail than 40k provides. Kill Team does this well.

And if I'm playing what would be a 20,000 point game?
Some things don't matter as much. What weapons the Titan has matter, whether the Tactical Squad is packing a Lascannon or a Missile Launcher doesn't so much.

Could you design a game that works from 200 to 200,000 points?
You could. But it is WORLDS easier to design a few different, related games tailored to their size.

 JNAProductions wrote:


I don't think 40k should be fixed at 2,000 points, no more no less. I think it can reasonably play at 500 to around 3,000 and still be fine.

Perhaps my original game size post from this morning wasn't clear that I was advocating for 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 point games since I used descriptions, not point values... But it's exactly what I was talking about.

It's a lazy Sunday and I didn't have anything better to do anyway, so not really complaining... But both of us could have saved some time and energy.

Personally I think you could do a slightly special rules for 500 point games, something like infantry and light vehicles. So players can say that’s the game they want and everyone has a similar baseline.
Then at 4000 points you build as two detachments off 2000. Or play 4 players each at 2000. Then 6000 points is three detachments. With how to alternate between players/sides between detachments.
As well as reasonable table sizes for each, mostly width. To spread them out a little bit.
This also could work for super heavy and apocalyptic detachments that could be special and always be 1000/2000 points for the silly big titans and such.
Even if it doesn’t work perfectly at higher numbers, it gives a good baseline to work with for players and lowers mental load partially for the larger points for players who want that once a year apocalypse game.

I think it still comes down to 40K being clunky rules set that could have easy been modified if they cared, but they keep sticking with some really annoying rules that mostly just makes more rolling.

It's worth noting that very few people noticed that GW has essentially stopped supporting 3000 point games in 10th.

I don't think rules for that game mode are necessary. If you area going to house-rule the mission anyways, why bother with GW's badly refined rules with a game mode they neither have experience nor data for?

Is anyone here aware of this game mode?
https://playontabletop.com/king-of-the-colosseum/

It has become a very popular way of playing 500 points recently.

Typically the "3K" point game support is little more than a simple table that shows victory points or another few modifiers going up. Often by the same amount they went up between 1K and 2K.

So its rather like how "open play" is an "officially supported game mode" in that yes its in the book, but it really doesn't have to be in the book. Players can do it themselves.

 PenitentJake wrote:
9th did it even better before Boarding Actions screwed up 500 point games. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't mind Boarding Actions.

For Boarding Action to screw up anything, 1st people have to pay attention to the fact it even exists....
Then they have to choose to use it.

Yes and no: in 9th edition, 500 point games were a part of the core rules.

In 10th, GW said "ALL 500 point games are now Boarding Action games." There are no longer Crusade missions designed specifically for 500 point games as result.

Obviously, I don't HAVE TO obey that official rule... But the game as written was a better fit for my personal needs before that rule existed.

Edit: Again, the problem is MY shorthand: I SAID "Boarding Actions screwed up 500 point games" but what I MEANT was "GW insisting that all 500 point games use the boarding action rules made 500-3k escalation campaigns more complicated than they were in 9th."

One day I'll learn not to shorthand my posts.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I was making a proposed rules thread, about designing missions for factions that emphasize their skills and are more accurate to what they'd be doing in the lore... But I realized, the only one I had a solid idea for was Marines.

Obviously some factions are great for pitched battles (Guard, Nids, Orks) but of the factions that probably SHOULDN'T be fighting like happens on the tabletop, what should they be doing instead?

Dark Eldar or any Eldar/Aeldari faction shouldn't be fighting a pitched battle. If they are something has either gone horribly wrong for them or they are after something that has a lot of defense and in general would probably be doing something to misdirect the enemy to prevent a direct attrition war.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I was making a proposed rules thread, about designing missions for factions that emphasize their skills and are more accurate to what they'd be doing in the lore... But I realized, the only one I had a solid idea for was Marines.

Obviously some factions are great for pitched battles (Guard, Nids, Orks) but of the factions that probably SHOULDN'T be fighting like happens on the tabletop, what should they be doing instead?

Dark Eldar or any Eldar/Aeldari faction shouldn't be fighting a pitched battle. If they are something has either gone horribly wrong for them or they are after something that has a lot of defense and in general would probably be doing something to misdirect the enemy to prevent a direct attrition war.

But there's more Eldar than there are any individual Space Marine Chapter.

If the Craftworlds can't mount major engagements for 40K then neither can the Ultramarines

Thing is when you talk about a dying race on a galactic scale you are still talking about a race that can number easily in the billions if not trillions. They just no longer number in the mega-trillions of a faction like the Imperium, Orks or Tyranids. Eldar are fallen, dying and decaying, but they still have a vast population by what we'd consider in today's modern world. They can still conduct huge military exercises, conquer worlds and so forth.

They just can't do so on the same scale as larger factions like the Imperium.
They also cannot (and choose not too somewhat) hold into territory in the same way either.


So yes on the one hand they are raiders and manipulators. They will read the future and attempt to save themselves from large military operations as much as the possibly can; but they can still conduct large scale warfare. It's just much more rare. Just like the tiny numbers of Ultramarines in the setting are super rare to the point where on many worlds any Space Marine is basically like a myth/legend/story that the old guy who was in the Guard who retired here talks about - but no one really believes its true that they fought side by side with an angel against demons.

PenitentJake wrote:Seriously dude. This ain't an argument you can win.

Politely, this is an incredibly rude comment, and just as incorrect as you believe JNA's to be. It's matter of opinion and personal taste - which you ought to recognise.

Your whole diatribe about "no, 40k shouldn't be 4 games instead of one game in a trenchcoat because XYZ" is *entirely* subjective and opinion based. I didn't agree with any one of the opinions you presented as factual reasons there (especially the "I don't want to buy four books to make you comfortable", what an absolutely terribly phrased comment), but you don't see anyone coming in and making the kind of comments you've been making to JNA here. "The best game is the escalation campaign that starts small and grows"? - Bull. That's a personal opinion, not an objective statement, and you did not present it as such.

As someone who, for the most part, seems and tries to come off reasonable, you really dropped the ball on this one.

Yes, 40k *is* just fine when both (or all) players at the table agree that they want to use 40k to represent it. The issue comes from when both players agree that they don't believe 40k 10th edition is capable of replicating what they want out of 40k. What do you suggest then, given that you don't even know what they want yet from 40k?

 Overread wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I was making a proposed rules thread, about designing missions for factions that emphasize their skills and are more accurate to what they'd be doing in the lore... But I realized, the only one I had a solid idea for was Marines.

Obviously some factions are great for pitched battles (Guard, Nids, Orks) but of the factions that probably SHOULDN'T be fighting like happens on the tabletop, what should they be doing instead?

Dark Eldar or any Eldar/Aeldari faction shouldn't be fighting a pitched battle. If they are something has either gone horribly wrong for them or they are after something that has a lot of defense and in general would probably be doing something to misdirect the enemy to prevent a direct attrition war.

But there's more Eldar than there are any individual Space Marine Chapter.

If the Craftworlds can't mount major engagements for 40K then neither can the Ultramarines

Thing is when you talk about a dying race on a galactic scale you are still talking about a race that can number easily in the billions if not trillions. They just no longer number in the mega-trillions of a faction like the Imperium, Orks or Tyranids. Eldar are fallen, dying and decaying, but they still have a vast population by what we'd consider in today's modern world. They can still conduct huge military exercises, conquer worlds and so forth.

They just can't do so on the same scale as larger factions like the Imperium.
They also cannot (and choose not too somewhat) hold into territory in the same way either.


So yes on the one hand they are raiders and manipulators. They will read the future and attempt to save themselves from large military operations as much as the possibly can; but they can still conduct large scale warfare. It's just much more rare. Just like the tiny numbers of Ultramarines in the setting are super rare to the point where on many worlds any Space Marine is basically like a myth/legend/story that the old guy who was in the Guard who retired here talks about - but no one really believes its true that they fought side by side with an angel against demons.

My point is a lot of them don't fight directly. The dark eldar/drukhari generally don't fight protracted battles against a fair footed enemy.

Eldar/aeldari is a mix because they may have to force a craftworld against a hive fleet that'll overwhelm some large swathe of space otherwise.

Regardless i was just saying in general eldar of any stripe usually don't like to fight protracted battles which is true and i wasn't saying space marines can or can't but space marines can take on a force directly or be a quick insertion force. Eldar don't want to do that.

Then there are others like tau which are also sort of a mix but absolutely do fight direct battles but with high tech and movement shenanigans.

--------

Anyway point being eldar esp. dark eldar are a glass cannon/sword whereas tau are just a cannon. Dark eldar generally don't fight an enemy at a strongpoint. Vect's rise to power happened partly because he allowed space marines to kill adversaries in commorragh. If the dark eldar are facing a normal prepared battle line and they operate anywhere over a day or two weeks possibly they lose the element of surprise and lose. It's much different than imperial guard or orks which may operate on a planet for a long time esp. imperial guard which wins in attrition wars against opponents that last years.

Pretty much the only time dark eldar fight protracted battles is in the dark city which they are normally just fighting themselves or possibly daemons spewing out of the center of the dark city (god i pray gw doesn't permanently kill off dark eldar).

 PenitentJake wrote:
Yes and no: in 9th edition, 500 point games were a part of the core rules.

In 10th, GW said "ALL 500 point games are now Boarding Action games." There are no longer Crusade missions designed specifically for 500 point games as result.

Obviously, I don't HAVE TO obey that official rule... But the game as written was a better fit for my personal needs before that rule existed.

Edit: Again, the problem is MY shorthand: I SAID "Boarding Actions screwed up 500 point games" but what I MEANT was "GW insisting that all 500 point games use the boarding action rules made 500-3k escalation campaigns more complicated than they were in 9th."

One day I'll learn not to shorthand my posts.

Are you, by any chance, confusing boarding action for combat patrols?
Boarding action is a separate game mode which requires an extra book and very specific terrain to play.
Combat patrol is the 500 point format with changed datasheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Typically the "3K" point game support is little more than a simple table that shows victory points or another few modifiers going up. Often by the same amount they went up between 1K and 2K.

So its rather like how "open play" is an "officially supported game mode" in that yes its in the book, but it really doesn't have to be in the book. Players can do it themselves.

It's not in the book right now though. Outside of the first three crusade books there has not been any 3k mission to play in 10th - and no one noticed, apparently including you.

Yeah but as I said its typically nothing more than a copy-paste of the same value changes between 1K and 2K.

It's up there with playing games with multiple players or house rules. The book doesn't have to tell you can play at 3K or 4K or 5K points; you just kinda do it on your own.