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.

 Niiai wrote:
When they write the rules they try to make a good game.

I'm going to have to slap a [* Citation required] on that claim...

It's always been an abstraction

Because if it wasn't, you'd have Tyranid and Guard armies that can't be deployed because they consist of so many models that they exceed the space on the board, or conversely you'd end up with space marine armies consisting of a tactical squad and very little else

We know this is the case because in every other context, where there isn't a constraint of balance or size, more "realistic" scales of battle can be represented.

Inquisitor? A single space marine is literally stronger than ten other men
Epic? an entire 40k battle typically represents a single fight phase between two detachments, Vs the larger scale conflct happening everywhere else
RPGs? Space marines require either specialist or anti-tank equipment to take out, or a lot of planning. they would be deployed in far smaller numbers than we see in 40k
Video games? Well, pretty much self explanatory, look at Space Marine
Novels? even taking into account artistic license, the numbers of forces on each side of conflicts are more realistic

40k is the worst representation of battles in the 40k universe, precisely because of the scale of the battles and the need to balance forces. GW even acknowledged this with their "Movie Marines" rules, making individual marines capable of taking on entire squads of enemies. Epic provides a much more accurate (although still necessarily abstracted) idea of the sense of scale these battles would take place on. No game will ever really be 1:1 because the lore is so over the top in terms of the abilities of some factions (Not just Marines, Eldar, Necrons, even Tau to an extent) that they really can't be represented 1:1 in any system that demands a fair fight

 Overread wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I 100% disagree, but can't respond further atm.

But as a thought experiment I want to ask what your proposed Guardsman to Marine ratio is. If 1 Marine model = 1 Marine, how many Guardsman does a model represent if it's not 1.

Likewise how many Lascannons should it take to knock out a Hive Tyrant?

Honestly I don't have values for those. Or rather finding values would be hard because our premise is not based upon fact nor real world archival information, such as Historical Wargames can rely on; but rather upon video games, artwork and lore. Even within lore we have variations such as the infallible narrators voice down to personal accounts and internal setting references which could be inaccurate. Not to mention many references will not state exact numbers



It means any attempt to ascribe specific numbers is going to be flawed from the get go.




What I can see is that those numbers have changed over time. Marine Tactical squads haven't really changed in number, but things like Gaunts have gone up and down quite significantly over the years. Things like the Carnifex have gone from top to middle tier in power as armies have expanded with more model options. The relative strengths and powers have shifted around a lot between editions as have unit counts and numbers.

In addition the distances on the tabletop are not accurate
The relative sizes are not accurate (most buildings are garden sheds in size; even tanks are often well undersized for their designed purpose)
The ranges are all over the place - a basilisk should be measuring its range in mile upon mile whilst a guardsman should be vastly under that range, even with a lasgun.
Even weapon powers are all over the place and change between editions as the designers mess with trying to be lore accurate and at the same time produce a game that is fun to play (eg how aircraft went from AA only to many more units being able to attack them).

When almost every other thing in the game is being adapted to suite a tabletop experience, I can't see why the representation of models should be the one thing that's "set in stone real". Does this mean that each time the points get adjusted the lore setting gets a huge change? Were armies during 2nd edition vastly different to those in 10th?



Again I just don't see this. Plus if you look at other wargames, esp historical re-enactment, you don't see 1:1 numbers there either. Yes you do see more accurate calibrations because they can draw on actual historical fact and specific numbers. Whilst in Warhammer most stories deal in general numbers not specifics.
The only time you start to see 1:1 appearing is in skirmishing games or RPG games where you really are playing a 1:1 experience.

Specific numbers are rarely given for troop amounts in the lore, it's true. But in the game itself specific numbers ARE given for every unit type other than Swarms like Nurglings, Rippers, Scarabs etc. And as noted the game grew out of a "high resolution" skirmish type of game where models were 1:1, and the comparative numbers haven't drifted significantly to suggest that ratio has changed.

For weapon results specific numbers are rarely given, but likewise specific numbers aren't what manifests in the game either, because the results of an action on the tabletop are determined by dice. What we have in both the lore and the tabletop are ranges of potential results, as well as comparative information. We know that a Lascannon is a specialized and effective AT weapon deployed by the Imperium, and in both the game and the lore it can glance off a target without effect, or inflict catastrophic damage. Both effects happen in the lore, and both effects happen in the game. In both the lore and the game a Lascannon is better at this role than a Krak Missile, and most weapons can be consistently modeled relative to each other, with the differences in outcome in any particular situation attributable to either the authors' narrative whim, or the result of the dice.

A "storied great hero" that performs some amazing feat in a novel is just a model that rolled 6s.

The thing is, usually the writers are telling you about extraordinary events, not the humdrum stuff. The writing is for excitement and drama and to make the hero look good. It's rare that the lore authors are writing about the main character getting overrun and butchered by the opposition, even though it's actually happening in-universe all the time. But there are some stories. . .

Codex Necrons 3rd Ed, pg 53. Black Templars are ambushed by Necron forces and the story ends thusly:
"His warriors were dying all around him and he could see yet more of the Necron skimmers flying in to strafe those few who had broken through the ambushers' trap. [Marshall/Captain] Augustine felt the Wraith's tail wrap around his waist as his body slammed into him from behind, driving him to his knees. He struggled to rise, the smaller beasts weighing down his arms with their numbers. Augustine roared in anger as the shadow of the Wraith's claws rose above him before hammering down into his chest.

The long blades punched though his armor, tearing into his hearts and lungs and ripping outwards. Augustine fought for a breath that would not come as he toppled forwards, his face slamming into the roadway.

His last sight was of his remaining warriors being cut down in the roaring firelight of the burning cathedral."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charax wrote:
It's always been an abstraction

Because if it wasn't, you'd have Tyranid and Guard armies that can't be deployed because they consist of so many models that they exceed the space on the board, or conversely you'd end up with space marine armies consisting of a tactical squad and very little else

We know this is the case because in every other context, where there isn't a constraint of balance or size, more "realistic" scales of battle can be represented.

Inquisitor? A single space marine is literally stronger than ten other men
Epic? an entire 40k battle typically represents a single fight phase between two detachments, Vs the larger scale conflct happening everywhere else
RPGs? Space marines require either specialist or anti-tank equipment to take out, or a lot of planning. they would be deployed in far smaller numbers than we see in 40k
Video games? Well, pretty much self explanatory, look at Space Marine
Novels? even taking into account artistic license, the numbers of forces on each side of conflicts are more realistic

40k is the worst representation of battles in the 40k universe, precisely because of the scale of the battles and the need to balance forces. GW even acknowledged this with their "Movie Marines" rules, making individual marines capable of taking on entire squads of enemies. Epic provides a much more accurate (although still necessarily abstracted) idea of the sense of scale these battles would take place on. No game will ever really be 1:1 because the lore is so over the top in terms of the abilities of some factions (Not just Marines, Eldar, Necrons, even Tau to an extent) that they really can't be represented 1:1 in any system that demands a fair fight.

"Movie Marines" were the tongue-in-cheek rules to give the bolter-porn fantasy so many dream about. They're not the "realistic" Marines, they're the "main character syndrome" version.

The game of 40k isn't realistic because of it's specific goal of being a fair fight between two players, but in terms of model representation 1:1 it's more coherent than the other mediums. . . especially video games. It was also the first, what everything else is based around, and has been consistent enough to retain a good deal of authority.

Surely we're not courting the idea that the video game, Space Marine, where the main character never runs out of ammunition, regains health by stabbing things, and is somehow only attacked from his front 90 degree arc is a somehow realistic representation?

In the same vein, while I know little about Inquisitor and any RPGs, I have difficulty imagining that sustained fire from small arms like Lasguns don't have a chance to take down a Marine, just like they can on the tabletop. Of course anti-tank weapons will be more reliable, so that's what you'd want. But if they couldn't be downed via Lasgun critical hits or something then I'd say those systems aren't doing a very good job.

In the same vein, if dedicated weapons are what it takes to reliably down a Marine, and the Imperial Guard opposition force can be filled to the brim with Plasma, Melta, Lascannons etc. . . . then how would you expect a mere 10 (or whatever) Marines to fare under such firepower?

Charax wrote:
It's always been an abstraction

It was (and is) not. There was a throw-away sidebar in one of the WFB appendices that you could think of models as an abstraction if you wanted to, but there's nothing to indicate that it isn't actually 1 to 1.

The baseline army (space marines for those somehow not following at home) simply doesn't function if it isn't 1 to 1- we know what those chapter/company/squad numbers are, and they can't be reduced to fractions of a model.

What people making 'lore' arguments don't seem to grasp is that the background battles ARE very big, but 40k the game doesn't represent those battles.
The original game was based on a very different idea of the Eye of Terror, where 'imperial' systems were cut off by warp storms for generations, and preyed upon by various raiders and rebels. The game has moved on , but its still about individual models in squads (and very individual tanks and monsters). Any abstraction in numbers isn't in the game system, its in people's heads (and your opponent likely doesn't share that opinion).

The heavy bolter trooper is there in that bit of rubble and matters as an individual (which is why you're rolling dice for each model and not squads). It isn't somehow 10 heavy bolter guys firing at 100 gaunts in a 2 square inch patch of woods.

The lore provides some depth for the game system, but the connection between the two is tenuous at best.

Thing is that works if you're sticking to just looking at the basic infantry and perhaps one tank now and then.

However the armies are way bigger than that now. You've got long range artillery; aircraft; big support units and more.


Lets take something like a Tervigon. It might spawn a handful of models over the course of a game, which when you look at its size and lore seems abnormal for its position within a swarming faction. Lore wise they'd have to have thousands of them to breed the vast swarms that they are supposed to uphold in major battles.

Or the artillery that's firing over a board that's likely inside its capability to fire if we assume the troops are a 1:1 representation. In theory a Basilisk should be just using its self defence weapons and close range stuff and crew if we take the game as 1:1. Otherwise those tiny number of troops are charging over huge swathes of empty terrain whilst being fired upon just to get close enough to take the artillery out at close range.



Again a lot of the abstract natures don't work when we try to stick them into lore. Models representing a non-standard number in lore tends to feel better for most situations. Your Marines might be 1:1; the gaunts might be 1:100; Guardsmen 1:50 whilst the commissar is a 1:10 etc...


Yes that's really messy numbers which is why the tabletop aims to achieve a flavour of faction styles of combat.

I think abstract ranges is entirely separate to abstract unit counts. Clearly the game has abstract ranges and distances, but in no way does that mean the model counts have to be abstract too.

The Basilisk may be a kilometre away on a battlefield of a few square kilometres instead of 80m away in a much smaller area, but the suggestion is that a single close-support artillery piece impacts the battle by that much. Seems very reasonable to me.

Also, artillery pieces on the tabletop are supposed to represent close support, of even scratch repurposing as assault guns. This was supported in some rules- Basilisks used to have to pay extra for indirect fire, because they were primarily being employed as a subpar tank/assault gun at 40k level. Artillery in the rear tends to be represented by called-barrage effects like vox casters in 2nd or the Master of Ordnance in 5th onwards.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is that works if you're sticking to just looking at the basic infantry and perhaps one tank now and then.

However the armies are way bigger than that now. You've got long range artillery; aircraft; big support units and more.

Armies are bigger, but not *that* much bigger. My Space Marine army is maybe twice the size of my 2nd ed one, and maybe 10-20% larger than my 3rd ed one. It was also an easy thing to field 100 Hormagaunts in 2nd ed. Well, easy aside from the cost of the models. I had a Titan during 2nd ed. I also think the Basilisk was released in 2nd ed. Most of the elements we have today were there, and the only thing missing was flyers.

Iirc, there were rules for flyers in Rogue Trader though.

The general scale and scope has changed, but not to such a degree where slipping away from 1:1 is justified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Your Marines might be 1:1; the gaunts might be 1:100; Guardsmen 1:50 whilst the commissar is a 1:10 etc...

That would suggest that it takes many hundreds of Hormagaunts to take down a Marine in CC. . . When we have precedent in more explicitly 1:1 skirmish level 2nd edition that that is definitely not the case.

Imagine you have a list with around 80 Marines, that is pretty much the usual canonical Space Marine deployment number.

Throw in a few Dread, a few Terminatorsunits and a Land Raider. All of which is canonically is super rare and borderline impossible to replace.

And at the other side you have a Tyranid list of half a dozen monsters, a hundred gaunts and a few dozen mid creatures. That's not even the 0.001% of the standard Tyranid invasion swarm.

And imagine you have an intense game in which both sides are heavily depleated. That's pretty much a Company crippled and a Chapter losing near irreplaceable gear and veterans in one battle while the Tyranids wouldn't even notice the loses.

That's one of the issues with 1:1 table to lore representation.

The issue isn't that the game has grown in scope. The issue is that the lore has grown in scope in some ways while refusing to grow in others (the absurd 1000 Chapter of 1000 Marines each, and Custodes are even worse at that).

 Tyran wrote:

That's one of the issues with 1:1 table to lore representation.

That's a separate issue from whether the models are single entities or aggregated. The need to have a relatively balanced match that is fun for both players requires that both forces be reasonably comparable precluding lopsided battles that are more evocative of the fluff. Those lopsided battles are more common in the narrative community than in matched play.

@Overread - I think they do need thousands of Tervigons to sustain large assaults. The fluff uses "dozens" and "scores" with regard to their squelchy cargo. Also they are described as carrying pre-existing but dormant Gaunts rather than generating them entirely, so an individual Tervigon does have relatively limited capacity to recharge assault groups.

@Tyran - I think thats a compelling argument for Tyranids specifically, but I don't think it necessarily converts across other factions. Also casualties in 40k do not necessarily represent deaths. For Marines in particular it may represent minor damage that forces them to withdraw instead, while every tyranid model removed is properly squelched.

Ultimately the rules set out how units or individual models are made combat-ineffective in the context of an engagement of a few minutes. There is a lot of grey area as to what any individual abstraction of the rules is meant to represent

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

That's one of the issues with 1:1 table to lore representation.

That's a separate issue from whether the models are single entities or aggregated. The need to have a relatively balanced match that is fun for both players requires that both forces be reasonably comparable precluding lopsided battles that are more evocative of the fluff. Those lopsided battles are more common in the narrative community than in matched play.

A truly "fluff evocative" battle with Tyranids is physically impossible because you would need a few million models, regardless if you are playing matched or narrative. That's the issue at least as far as Nids are concerned.

 Flinty wrote:
@Overread - I think they do need thousands of Tervigons to sustain large assaults. The fluff uses "dozens" and "scores" with regard to their squelchy cargo. Also they are described as carrying pre-existing but dormant Gaunts rather than generating them entirely, so an individual Tervigon does have relatively limited capacity to recharge assault groups.

@Tyran - I think thats a compelling argument for Tyranids specifically, but I don't think it necessarily converts across other factions. Also casualties in 40k do not necessarily represent deaths. For Marines in particular it may represent minor damage that forces them to withdraw instead, while every tyranid model removed is properly squelched.

Ultimately the rules set out how units or individual models are made combat-ineffective in the context of an engagement of a few minutes. There is a lot of grey area as to what any individual abstraction of the rules is meant to represent

Very true for a planet wide invasion there would be thousands of Tervigons, but my impression is they aren't swarming like gaunts are, but rather are smaller islands in the sea.

And yes the numbers don't work universally. Armies like Marines and Eldar are likely highly elite and might even be 1:1 to their tabletop variations. Meanwhile armies like Guard and Tyranids are at the opposite end. Everyone else sits inbetween. Orks likely swarm up, esp for the gits and gretchin; Tau Kroot might bulk up on numbers; Necron Warriors are famously supposed to be marching in vast legions of unstoppable killing machines.


In the end even going to Epic scale you won't get a faithful game; heck even on video games I doubt any engine could faithfully recreate the experience. Then again you'd get a more realistic idea if you were to play a total war style game.



Actually lets go there and consider that Old World is also grossly under numerically representing numbers for armies they have. When they translated it into the Total War game we saw single heroes; single big dragons; but then infantry bulked out a lot to many in rank and file blocks. Way more than you'd ever field on a game board typically.

 Tyran wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

That's one of the issues with 1:1 table to lore representation.

That's a separate issue from whether the models are single entities or aggregated. The need to have a relatively balanced match that is fun for both players requires that both forces be reasonably comparable precluding lopsided battles that are more evocative of the fluff. Those lopsided battles are more common in the narrative community than in matched play.

A truly "fluff evocative" battle with Tyranids is physically impossible because you would need a few million models, regardless if you are playing matched or narrative. That's the issue at least as far as Nids are concerned.

A company's worth of Marines isn't fighting off millions of Tyranids all by itself in the first place.

In the scale of 40k, the Marines are more likely desperately trying to achieve some critical objective while there's a huge war going on around them. 2nd ed actually did account for this swarm effect through the "Tyranid fatigue tables" or whatever they were called, alongside the mission that respawned Nid units.

Why exactly are people trying to cram an entire battle into such a small area? And then complain it isn't somehow representative? Seriously?

Weapon ranges are abstracted to be sure; a mobile artillery piece is unlikely to be engaging targets 50 meters away. That's more an argument AGAINST trying to represent more models engaged in an area. Is there now 9 howitzers between those two chicken coops firing upon 300 orks behind that shrubbery?

I guess if that's your head cannon, roll with it. To me the game is silly enough scale-wise as it is.

 amanita wrote:

Weapon ranges are abstracted to be sure; a mobile artillery piece is unlikely to be engaging targets 50 meters away. That's more an argument AGAINST trying to represent more models engaged in an area. Is there now 9 howitzers between those two chicken coops firing upon 300 orks behind that shrubbery?

Hahaha. A solid point.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

That's one of the issues with 1:1 table to lore representation.

That's a separate issue from whether the models are single entities or aggregated. The need to have a relatively balanced match that is fun for both players requires that both forces be reasonably comparable precluding lopsided battles that are more evocative of the fluff. Those lopsided battles are more common in the narrative community than in matched play.

A truly "fluff evocative" battle with Tyranids is physically impossible because you would need a few million models, regardless if you are playing matched or narrative. That's the issue at least as far as Nids are concerned.

A company's worth of Marines isn't fighting off millions of Tyranids all by itself in the first place.

In the scale of 40k, the Marines are more likely desperately trying to achieve some critical objective while there's a huge war going on around them. 2nd ed actually did account for this swarm effect through the "Tyranid fatigue tables" or whatever they were called, alongside the mission that respawned Nid units.

I agree. I think we can look at DoW2, the Amphelion Project, and the 1st Tyrannic War for good examples of how Marines try to interact with Tyranids and when they fail.

DoW2 has a small Space Marine force conducting rapid precision strikes against key Tyranid targets in support of a much larger war effort (one of the objectives the strike force achieves is to mobilise the military and archeotech manufactorums of a hive world to support them). They are able to maintain their mobility and therefore are ultimately able to deliver a catastrophic blow with a precision strike into a vulnerability at the heart of the swarm. At no point was that force fighting millions of Tyranids at once, but instead engaged in small actions against a few hundred at most.

The Amphelion Project has Marines run into the issue of what happens when their mobility is countered by Tyranids- they take a beating and end up retreating from the battle.

The 1st Tyrannic War has both elements. The overarching mission in the 4th edition Battle for Macragge starter was a small unit action between some local Tyranid infestation and a Marine squad sent on a mission of strategic importance to the Space Marine cause- geneseed recovery. But at a larger scale, millions of Tyranids assaulted the Macragge PDF with titan support embedded in some of the mightiest fortifications in the Imperium (the polar fotresses) alongside Space Marine support. Once the Ultramarines 1st company ran out of support, defences, and room to manoeuvre, they died to a man in a last stand.

So yeah, Marines try hard not to fight millions of Tyranids at once, but instead to perform critical strikes in support of the wider war. When they cannot, they die. Horribly.

Edit: want to finish my last playthrough of DoW2 on Primarch now. Great campaign

 amanita wrote:
Why exactly are people trying to cram an entire battle into such a small area? And then complain it isn't somehow representative? Seriously?

Weapon ranges are abstracted to be sure; a mobile artillery piece is unlikely to be engaging targets 50 meters away. That's more an argument AGAINST trying to represent more models engaged in an area. Is there now 9 howitzers between those two chicken coops firing upon 300 orks behind that shrubbery?

I guess if that's your head cannon, roll with it. To me the game is silly enough scale-wise as it is.

Then again if you read GW fluff you can see GW thinks battles happen that close

Just read part in novel where imperial fist defending yells for his troops "wait for it! wait for it!" while and then at 30 meters(literally said there 30 meters) orders firing

Maybe the ranges are quite literal because GW decided for some reason even firefights happen at such close ranges...

It's GW. Don't look too closely numbers.

At one point they quoted numbers in Siege of Terra and said "such epic scale"...Ummm...Number was about same as world war 2 had soldiers involved

I think part of it is that 40K is often made out to be fairly gunpowder age in terms of its references. It kind of helps explain how close combat is such a big thing in the setting, whereas in real modern and futuristic warfare you'd often never get close enough with a blade in a normal battlefield situation.

Otherwise the issue is that all those close combat units would either have to always be sneaking around in advance or we'd be arguing why it is that close combat units appear impervious to bullets, lasers and acid but perfectly cuttable with a regular blade.

Most units do have to take cover on the approach to melee or have enough numbers to soak the casualties. Open ground is not conducive to survival in the 40k setting. Even titans use cover when fighting firepower of a class that can hurt them.

With that said, I think melee returning is entirely logical if combatants are tough enough to not be reliably killed by shooting but can be despatched by precise melee blows or rarer, less-precision-required melee weapons with armour-disrupting effects. Armour has weak points- hitting these is largely up to chance for most weapons from anything but point-blank range. Likewise, tougher-than-human soldiers have weakpoints, with the same limitations on hitting them. So you have three options: fire more shots (greater chance of hitting weak spot), fire shots that are powerful enough to negate the defenses (no need to hit weak spot), or get in close and pinpoint the weakspots in melee. Doing all three is possible.

Space Marines wear armour that is proportionally as good as plate armour was in the 15th century. Very few infantry-portable weapons can reliably defeat it at range. So naturally, they can reach melee without being easily stopped in a lot of circumstances.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Hard disagree. 40k's models were always meant to be anything but a 1-to-1 translation, imo.

The issue we see is basically GW continually trying to expand the scope in ways it never should've been. Things like the Swarmlord, Knights, and numerous other larger vehicles and monsters cannot effectively translate over to what was designed to be a company-ish sized wargame.

I agree mostly. Originally, RT was written for a reasonable 1:1 Skirmish/RPG style encounter. That quickly changed and by 2nd edition it was pretty clearly a platoon or so of figures representing a company size engagement, on a very compressed battlefield.

However, I don't think it should bother 40k players. 40k represents legendary, comic book style battles. That's part of the appeal and fun (even for folks like me who use Grimdark Future) and clearly baked into the rules. GW makes no effort to provide ground or unit scale because it doesn't matter

What I am getting from this is either the minis are not 1 - 1 with the troops or they are but literally every other part of the setting is abstracted to absurdity to make the game and the correspondence work.

I don't agree with the absurdity part. Its a game to allow people to push little models about and roll dice. One can construct various arguments about what individual and/or collective abstractions may or may not represent "in reality" in the setting. However, given the constraints of preferred model scale, reasonable playing surface size, available time, etc, some kind of compromise needs to be made.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
What I am getting from this is either the minis are not 1 - 1 with the troops or they are but literally every other part of the setting is abstracted to absurdity to make the game and the correspondence work.

What Flinty said.

But also, the reason I think the game was built around 1:1 representation and remains that way to this day is the way it is focused on your relationship with your models. For most of the games history, you as the player have been rewarded for putting effort into building your model and being attached to their individual narratives. This was supported by armouries for characters and various other wargear options. Relaxing the 1:1 relationship weakens this association between what you have built and what they are and can do on the battlefield, and I think weakens the natural narrative of that. Some people prefer to abstract this, but that feels like a departure from the default.

Edit: amanita's post explains this well IMO:

 amanita wrote:
They are one-to-one for me. Why is there a need to abstract it any further?

When my chaos sorcerer Zhutek leads a handful of Raptors and intercepts a squad of Battle Sisters in the ruined city of Gorth, it's not a platoon or a company or anything else. He and his band may represent a crucial moment in a likely much larger encounter, but each stands where they are.

Zhutek's cadre leaves the streets awash in blood, only to be repaid in kind by the Vindicare Drayon. Now the enraged Raptors seek to avenge the death of their leader. The shadow who hides in the nearby bell tower will soon receive his payment!

Or I guess a handful of snipers picked off a smattering of leaders only to be hunted down by a couple platoons of jump infantry all in some ruined city somewhere over the course of weeks of battle. *yawn*

Basically, not all abstractions are equal, and some require greater suspensions of disbelief than others. A good example is saves- rolling saves after wounds is not intuitive (logically the armour has already failed if the attack is wounding), but it makes the roll feel more exciting and cinematic. I get why that little abstraction was done, and it is mathematically the same anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do agree that the level of abstraction is increasing with each recent edition, and the game is feeling more and more contrived relative to the lore. Maybe at some point the game will flip over to a greater level of abstraction for individual models too, along the lines of "terminator weapons" etc. But then that is part of why I don't really want to play modern 40k...

 Haighus wrote:
I do agree that the level of abstraction is increasing with each recent edition, and the game is feeling more and more contrived relative to the lore. Maybe at some point the game will flip over to a greater level of abstraction for individual models too, along the lines of "terminator weapons" etc. But then that is part of why I don't really want to play modern 40k...

This is very much the case because higher model counts simply don't allow the detail possible in smaller games. What is more, the inclusions of gratuitously out of scale elements (flyers) makes a confused jumble of what was otherwise a pretty cohesive skirmish-level game.

If you tried to include individual aircraft on a WW II or modern platoon-scale game, people would laugh at you. At the 28mm scale, the strike aircraft is in a parking lot outside the store, perched on a light post - and that's a "down in the dirt" gun run. If rockets are being employed, they're two blocks away.

Another complicating factor is the ebb and flow of certain weapons vs various creatures. Rogue Trader and 2nd ed. were the last time the fluff fully lined up with the game. Back then, you could put a couple of squads of Space Marines in hard cover behind wire and with a clear field of fire in front of them, they could kill many times their point values. The whole "tide of guants getting mowed down" really did happen if you could get your forces set up right.

I've no idea how the numbers add up now, and don't particularly care, but the game was built around a 1:1 concept. And it worked.

 Overread wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
@Overread - I think they do need thousands of Tervigons to sustain large assaults. The fluff uses "dozens" and "scores" with regard to their squelchy cargo. Also they are described as carrying pre-existing but dormant Gaunts rather than generating them entirely, so an individual Tervigon does have relatively limited capacity to recharge assault groups.

@Tyran - I think thats a compelling argument for Tyranids specifically, but I don't think it necessarily converts across other factions. Also casualties in 40k do not necessarily represent deaths. For Marines in particular it may represent minor damage that forces them to withdraw instead, while every tyranid model removed is properly squelched.

Ultimately the rules set out how units or individual models are made combat-ineffective in the context of an engagement of a few minutes. There is a lot of grey area as to what any individual abstraction of the rules is meant to represent

Very true for a planet wide invasion there would be thousands of Tervigons, but my impression is they aren't swarming like gaunts are, but rather are smaller islands in the sea.

And yes the numbers don't work universally. Armies like Marines and Eldar are likely highly elite and might even be 1:1 to their tabletop variations. Meanwhile armies like Guard and Tyranids are at the opposite end. Everyone else sits inbetween. Orks likely swarm up, esp for the gits and gretchin; Tau Kroot might bulk up on numbers; Necron Warriors are famously supposed to be marching in vast legions of unstoppable killing machines.


In the end even going to Epic scale you won't get a faithful game; heck even on video games I doubt any engine could faithfully recreate the experience. Then again you'd get a more realistic idea if you were to play a total war style game.



Actually lets go there and consider that Old World is also grossly under numerically representing numbers for armies they have. When they translated it into the Total War game we saw single heroes; single big dragons; but then infantry bulked out a lot to many in rank and file blocks. Way more than you'd ever field on a game board typically.

Fantasy used to explicitly say that it wasn't 1:1 representation, certainly in the 4th edition rulebook when I started and I assume it stayed that way otherwise it is just ridiculous.

Dai wrote:
Fantasy used to explicitly say that it wasn't 1:1 representation, certainly in the 4th edition rulebook when I started and I assume it stayed that way otherwise it is just ridiculous.

Can you quote the page? Because I'm drawing a blank.

I think its always meant to be 1:1 relationship. I feel the issue is as some have said. People want to fight WW2 - or Stalingrad - but are actually meant to be fighting the Battle at the Farm.
Tyranids should have milllions of organisms in army? Sure. So should Guard. And Orks. And... etc.
But they aren't all showing up at this one farm.

Tyel wrote:

But they aren't all showing up at this one farm.

And one shot from the Basilisk should have obliterated the farm and everything for a mile around it.

Or one fly by from the dragon set the whole field, farm and half your front line in flames.

 Overread wrote:

Tyel wrote:

But they aren't all showing up at this one farm.

And one shot from the Basilisk should have obliterated the farm and everything for a mile around it.

Or one fly by from the dragon set the whole field, farm and half your front line in flames.

Er, what? Basilisks are not supposed to be anything like that powerful and have explicit lore of them being used as assault guns to support infantry assaults.

Deathstrike missiles, yes. Deathstrikes really don't work well in 40k except as an objective to be captured/destroyed. I think that is not a controversial opinion either. Even in Apocalypse, they felt very underwhelming even in the vortex missile mode when they could utterly melt a 10" diametre circle.

Tyel wrote:

Dai wrote:
Fantasy used to explicitly say that it wasn't 1:1 representation, certainly in the 4th edition rulebook when I started and I assume it stayed that way otherwise it is just ridiculous.

Can you quote the page? Because I'm drawing a blank.

I think its always meant to be 1:1 relationship. I feel the issue is as some have said. People want to fight WW2 - or Stalingrad - but are actually meant to be fighting the Battle at the Farm.
Tyranids should have milllions of organisms in army? Sure. So should Guard. And Orks. And... etc.
But they aren't all showing up at this one farm.

Afraid not, I'm going off my own memory from something I read over a quarter century ago so I admit it is quite fallible! It could have been a White Dwarf or another book but I'm sure I read it sometime during 4th edition from an official source because I always thought it silly that fantasy battles had multiple tiny regiments and was glad of them saying so!

 Overread wrote:
A continuation of a side discussion begun here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480/812254.page#11629871



For simplicities sake I'm arguing that the models on the tabletop do not represent a faithful recreation of the number of units in the lore/setting.

Instead I argue that models represent a reflective flavour of the faction, but that does not translate to a 1:1 relationship with the lore and that there is no universal count either. So some might represent more individuals in lore and some less and that the game is a highly abstract take on the setting for the purposes of being a practical game to play with miniatures at the 32mm scale whilst commanding "armies".



I'd further argue this is the case because things such as unit model counts have changed over the years. Go back to 2nd edition and no one was using multiple 40 model strong gaunt squads and yet in some editions that has been possible, practical and done. 10th edition however changed the limit to 30max in a gaunt squad. There are also multiple other examples of unit group sizes changing over time, for some factions more than others.

Furthermore many armies feature powerful units/models that are fighting alongside regular infantry and yet can be taken down by those regular infantry. It doesn't feel right that super powered characters such as Primarchs, Ork Warbosses, Hive Tyrants and soforth can be taken down by a small handful of guardsmen having a lucky break on rolls.

Agreed.

Each model should represent one tactical unit... which can be one individual (Primarch, Warboss, Emperor Titan) or a squad, or hell, why not a battalion?