Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I've been playing 40k for a good many years now, and I've got several thousand points of Tau and Tyranids (and at least 1k of Eldar as well). I still enjoy the game and play often enough with my comrades, but I've come across, for lack of a better term, a sticking point.
In real wars, armies don't line up across from each other, and then start shooting. Of course, in real wars, there aren't turns and such, but every system has its limits and to command and control many units would take more than one brain. However, my current "beef" is that there's no room for any large strategic movement. It's micromanaging, and I suppose with the sizeable forces that I have I'm perhaps simply looking for something along the lines of macromanaging. I know this is somewhat without coherency, I'm just distraught with this sense that the game is more like chess and less like the realistic wars it's supposed to depict. This opens the doorway for powergaming and taking advantage of the rules, manipulating the turns so that you can move 24" to contest objectives on the last turn with a fast skimmer or pinning your enemy in a corner. Corners exist, and objectives exist, but on a larger scale battlefield there are so many more options! I really don't have an objective with this, I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is a bad game by any means (like I said, I enjoy it still), I'm just... disheartened to have proverbially opened my eyes to see that this is more of a game of chess than a (relatively) accurate depiction of awesome wars in the future. Just had to get this off of my chest I guess.
My gaming group's new motto: That army you're using is overpowered because it hurts my guys, codex is broken and needs a rewrite.
I see your problem and have had patches like that myself. Games among friends are more easily altered to fix this. Try playing with the rules and make objectives that each person must reach and control for a number of turns. This could be used to note that the "squad" is completing some action such as retrieving data, securing weapons, or calling for reinforcements. Instead of simply ending the game, you may decide you want each objective to do something else, like get an orbital bombardment, bring in an ally, or whatever other nonsense you would want. This will help with the realism on the objectives a bit.
The strict turn based system is also an issue. This is simple to fix... (though I have not tested this method yet)
1. For each phase roll 1D6 + a stat value like Initiative or Leadership for each unit you would like to move. (I recommend using a different stat for each phase to even out racial differences) ex: Movement D6+LD (to show how well the unit listens to commands), shooting D6+BS (to show how adept they are at spotting an enemy), and assault D6+I (to show how quick a unit is)
2. Both sides declare all movements for the first units.
3. All units with the same total will move at the same time for both sides.
4. Repeat until all units have been moved
Just a few ideas for you and remember I have not yet play tested the turn based fix.
Never apologise for asking questions young seers, through asking
questions we find answers, and through those answers we gain
knowledge of ourselves and the universe around us
Meet My Autarch
Not meant in a mocking tone, just an observation. How much realism were you expecting from a game where superhumans and aliens stroll through machineguns to punch the enemy in the face or saw them in half with a chainsaw?
40K and WFB are both "Fantasy" games that involve wholly spectacular elements. While I do enjoy the "hero" atmosphere and simplified gameplay, if I want something that even resembles true combat, I usually go with historical games. Flames of War for example.
Any wargame you play will have limitations as the one thing that cannot be accurately represented is the actions of individuals. In a wargame your soldier is assumed to be so completely inept that short of an order from his commander he is incapable of moving, taking cover or returning fire. On the other hand, if you give a soldier in a wargame an order it is always obeyed and never misinterpreted or ignored. In this respect, it would be almost impossible to represent soldiers without the micromanagement element or making the game so hideously complicated it would border on the unplayable. While some games try to represent this through a limited morale system it still falls pretty short of what actually happens.
Wargames have limitations, and most balance realism with playability. Too much realism makes the game time consuming and tedious, but too little oversimplifies the process. In general I find both 40K and WFB have a nice balance that keeps a high tempo without just making it a bag of dice rolls.
Blais's Paint Studio-Getting broken armies good soft scores since 2009
I never liked battling with the models I made, I played a few games and my bad maths showed and strained my head, I much prefer to paint and try depect battles with models rather thean trying to fight with them. Get yourself a decent computer and play Dawn Of War, It's not really fun in terms of epic games but it has the same feel of tabletop fighting, plus nothing is more satisfying then seeing your dreadnought pick up a chaos marine and spin it around while crushing it
Ok, i can see what you're saying and i'd like to make 2 suggestions:
1. Epic! massive scales of battles!
2. And perhaps easier: Apocalypse! Playing huge battles has re-invented the game for many disenfranchised with the "normal" game.
I have yet to reach your size of armies, but i can see how it would get... dull... after a while/
Got a "good" rumour from a GW staffer? Forget about it, LO'ers know more than any random GW shop staffer.
Voor alle nederlanders:
The Dutch Legion
Haha- or paintball. Just like 40K, you don't actually DIE when you mess up. But in all seriousness,
yes, i understand your disenchantment. I felt the same initially, expecting to get an actual warfare feeling rather than the idiocy that 40K promotes. I started collecting my SM around the concepts of 'fields of fire,' 'cover fire,' and 'fire support'- ideas that really don't exist in 40k. My friend pointed out the stupidity of not being allowed to move through your own units. In modern warfare this is a VERY prevalent tactic known as 'buddy rushing'. In 40K you can't do it because ... actually I don't know why.
The real problem is that 40K is utilizing the same number of men in a single small battle, as a real-world Company or Battalion. The tables are just becoming too crowded. The best bet is playing a campaign (macromanagement) consisting of several small 500-750pt battles that don't use the force org. charts, or even equal points values (micromanaging). Perhaps I will make a post expanding on this later.
There are several options floating around the forums though. Macmoss is working on publishing his 'Lethal' system but until that comes out, you can try modifying the way the game works using other suggestions. The thread "40K Outside" has some great idea, and my whfb thread on "Instinctive Actions" can be modified to give that 'confusion of command' feeling. Playing smaller games on larger tables, playing missions, messing with the turn structure, combining systems, and playing campaigns can all be very helpful.
Uhh, you can move through friendly units, just need enough room between bases. Also, "buddy rushing" (not a real term) doesn't involve movement through other units, otherwise you'd be walking through their supressin fire, it involves moving parallel or flanking the enemy while another team/squad/element supresses. You can do this in 40K except for the fact that there is no true supression fire and it also serves no purpose as your opponent cannot act while it is your turn.My friend pointed out the stupidity of not being allowed to move through your own units. In modern warfare this is a VERY prevalent tactic known as 'buddy rushing'. In 40K you can't do it because ... actually I don't know why.
In other games such as FoW there is actually a supression system and defensive fire that make tactics like using one unit to supress while the other assaults wise and useful.
Blais's Paint Studio-Getting broken armies good soft scores since 2009
Tactics and rules aside, everyone goes through patches like this and then we get a thread on the forum every few months or so by someone who is getting disillusioned with 40k in general. Maybe they witnessed firsthand the abuse that GW is capable of dishing out onto their loyal customer base. Maybe they're frustrated by the limitations of the rules system. The point is, you're not the first person to feel this way and you certainly won't be the last so don't worry about it. I'd say take Mastershake's advice although I also advocate stepping back from it for a little while and taking the time to do some other hobbies you enjoy, and then coming back. Have viable alternatives for deep tactical gameplay. That's probably what I play Hordes and Warmachine for nowadays, as well as fighting games and shoot 'em ups where I can exercise my brain, if I really feel the need for it. But at the end of the day I always come back and play 40k. It comes and goes. Hopefully it will go soon and then we can all get back to having fun.
Just my personal experience with the problem. Hope it helps.
The point is, I think 40k rules work best with games around 500 to 1500 points. Smaller than that, and you'll probably have more fun enriching the game with rules like Necromunda. Bigger than that, and you better switch to Epic, or else everything is going to get tedious and stupid.
I really thought they were gonna do something about the rigid turn-based system in 5th edition, since they're obviously trying to make us play larger games. Sadly, this was not the case. You know, you could even just implement some simple house rules, like what someone said before me. I think a perfectly fair house rule would be "Opportunity Fire: any unit may skip its shooting phase this turn, and instead complete its shooting phase at the beginning of the opponnent's next shooting phase".
Just an idea.
Tyranids: 2500 pts
Imperial Guard: 1000 pts
Witch Hunters: 1000 pts