PDA

View Full Version : Logic and 40K...where do you draw the line?



William McCoy
31-05-2006, 16:54
Cruising the GW boards and I stumbled upon a post about how much a Broadside weighs. Someone threw out a rather large number, and the original poster's response was "Wow, that must have some hard time in soft ground!", to which the response was "Well, so would Terminators, but they don't sink." And, as most things do, it got me thinking.

Where does logic belong in the rule set, and where do we just need to admit that sometimes summoning a Demon from a different universe isn't exactly going to go normally according to Newtonian physics? Where do you, personally, feel the rules need to focus on game mechanics, and stop representing fluff?

I've seen arguments for differentiating Inv. saves to include dodge saves, and countless threads asking for to-hit modifiers...but if you bring those in to the argument, who's to stop with requests like the above mentioned "Weight in Difficult Terrain" details and such? I for one think fluff should stay in the novels, and game mechanics can just be..."Creatively Described" to at least support fluff in concept. But maybe that's just me...

Other thoughts?

---Slim

ffclubhero
31-05-2006, 17:02
Greetings, Slim.

I think some people just dig conversation on mechanics and the like. Personally I'm not worried about the weight of Broadsides or Terminators.... And if a guy (or gal) wants to spend their time chatting about the physics of Daemon summoning, that's cool by me....

lord_blackfang
31-05-2006, 17:09
It's useless to apply logic to a universe where pointy sticks are more decisive than plasma cannons.

Kymar
31-05-2006, 17:18
I usually try to stick to "themes" rather then straight logic. Sort of how a super hero comic book will have a crazy logic to things, but will stay with that crazy idea as best it can.

A good example came up yesterday, A friend of mine was telling me about the stratgems for City of Death and how one of them makes Flamer templates higher strength. I thought this was a great idea and said how it would make my Eldar Warlocks with destructor very powerful.

My friend didn't like that idea at all and said that the strategem should only work for "fire based" template weapons. I disagree because they are both "template" weapons and have exactly the same game effect.

I could very well be wrong, but that is how I like to see 40k rules, tight little boxes of illogic. ;)

revford
31-05-2006, 17:32
I'd have to agree that a fun game must come before a realistic one.

We can all excuse weird rules, for example Tau battlesuits don't sink because they have jet packs and Terminators don't sink because they, um, are, um, well, they are magic, or have suspensor technology, or the divine will of the God Emperor of mankind holds back the foul mud of xenos. :-}=

As long as the game doesn't stretch so far from logic that you can't suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it, game first, reality second.

The pointy stick/bayonette vs plasma cannon is a good point but on the other end of the scale you have a game like Legends of the Old West where melee is only really used to push people out of the tavern so you can shoot them.

40K is all about up close and personal victory or death, last stand kinda stuff. The fact that you get two melee phases to each shooting phase tells you all you need to know about the focus of 40K.

Anyone in a real world army who threw men into a meat grinder assault OF DEATH! they way most 40K games go would be shot or medicated.

Despoiler
31-05-2006, 17:35
shotguns have always been a little pet moan with me.

logically a shotgun should be more devastating the closer you are to the enemy (the closer you are the less the pellets spread so the power is more compact equalling more punch). unforetunatly the game makes shotguns just as powerful at point blank than they are at 12".

To conquer such an obvious oversight my game group make shotguns better at close ranges. basically at half range the shotgun gains +1 Str Assault 1.

for me logic makes way for house rules.

dean
31-05-2006, 18:10
Logic? Who let Mr Spock in here?...

Logic lets in too many variables that slow down gameplay. Logically 75% of casualtys are wounded that may or may not be combat capable, but to give every army an "I'll be back" roll and/or a "stunned" roll to see if someone is killed or wounded or just knocked down will make a very good 2 hour game into a 6-7 hour game. I wasnt very happy when they re-did epic from 2nd ed to the current ruleset but the game doesnt take nearly as long cause you dont have to do nearly as many mechanics.

sliganian
31-05-2006, 18:31
What people need to remember is this:

40K is a GAME. Not a 'BATTLE SIMULATION'. In fact, it would be impossible to do as a simulation, given 99% of the items involved don't exist in Earth 21st century.

Yes, there are lots of logical pet peeves I have with the game, but ultimate it is all just chalked up under the heading 'How the Game Works.'

I mean, does it make ANY sense in Monopoly that I get $200 for going around 'GO'? I don't see folks into estoric debates over it....

revford
31-05-2006, 18:45
shotguns have always been a little pet moan with me.

logically a shotgun should be more devastating the closer you are to the enemy (the closer you are the less the pellets spread so the power is more compact equalling more punch). unforetunatly the game makes shotguns just as powerful at point blank than they are at 12".

To conquer such an obvious oversight my game group make shotguns better at close ranges. basically at half range the shotgun gains +1 Str Assault 1.

for me logic makes way for house rules.

Legends of the Old West, also by GW and based on Lord of the Rings does the very same thing with shotguns, but +2 strength.

I do like shotguns in 40K, I don't want to get into the old AD&D bell curves for arrow damage based on range. That was a nightmare.

40K is simple, like me, so I like it. :-}=

While I'm at it I want my $200 passing GO!

Kjell
31-05-2006, 19:55
Woah, wait, GW has a Western game? And I found it bewildering when I found out about Historical Battles...


But, yes, logic. As long as there is a valid in-world excuse for violating the laws of physics I'm relatively fine with it. Like gravity-related technology. Weights easily get wonky but as far as I know such things aren't commonly mentioned. Maybe in Inquisitor, though.



Needless to say, anything daemonic doesn't have to worry about making sense. :p

Piku
31-05-2006, 20:20
The fantastical element is what I actually like about 40K.
I would go as far as to say that it is what defines it. As to the question 'where do you draw the line?' well I beleive that there is a (rather convoluted) logic that makes sense on its own terms within the 40k universe. Heavy terminators in marshy ground...well they do have to take terrain tests.

Seth the Dark
31-05-2006, 20:47
The only point of logics and 40k that I have problems with is when someone tries to shoot my Falcon but can only see the tip of the tank.

Nurglitch
31-05-2006, 21:31
What exactly are you people talking about when you use the term 'logic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic)'?

Khaine's Messenger
31-05-2006, 21:33
Where does logic belong in the rule set

An abstract level of detail that allows for rough consistancy and a system of abstraction that survives basic suspension of disbelief. A lot of it has to do with the degree to which both players know and apply the rules...computer games are neat in that the computer pretty much always knows the rules and can act as an unbiased agent (applying all those little "unsaid" rules of simulations like "your gamepiece does not levitate ten inches above the game board"). In roleplaying games, there's a (often biased, but that can be a good thing) DM/GM/storyteller who can keep things flowing and such beyond those little snafu's.

In 40k, you don't really have those. You just have the books and the players, and the amount of detail you could have in a roleplaying game or a computer game, where someone "knowing all the rules" is an option (or at least a pretense ;) ), while possible, might be more than most people are willing to invest in a hobby. Finding that boundary is a screwy business, and I wish there was more a stab at it than seems given, but there we are....


and where do we just need to admit that sometimes summoning a Demon from a different universe isn't exactly going to go normally according to Newtonian physics?

As long as it maintains internal consistancy, it's fine. Mind you, checkers and Monopoly are internally consistant. Although Monopoly is an interesting case in point. Since the rules are often passed on via word of mouth rather than by people reading them, there's at least one "realistic" rule that's often ignored. Similarly, there are several variations on checkers and several obscure chess moves.


Where do you, personally, feel the rules need to focus on game mechanics, and stop representing fluff?

The core game mechanics are reasonable for what they offer, I think. I hardly think that they adequately represent the background as written, but I think that has less to do with the core mechanics than issues with the faction source books* and, in some respects, the players (esp. those who never play missions beyond Cleanse with all unit special rules--often the ones who play for "blasty fun"). The core mechanics are a bit at fault, yeah, and they're hardly solid, and always subject to revision.

*If a squad of marines would do ya, how would GW sell an army of them? ;) Okay, back, cynic, back! Back in your cage! :angel:

revford
31-05-2006, 22:12
Woah, wait, GW has a Western game? And I found it bewildering when I found out about Historical Battles...

I don't want to wander too far off topic, but Yes they do, it's great and has a website here:

http://www.warhammer-historical.com/tow/default.htm

x-esiv-4c
31-05-2006, 22:21
My logic pretty much stops at: "It's the year 40,000.........."

Latro_
31-05-2006, 22:28
If you want a game based a bit more on real life you can always try Inquisitor.

I like to think of 40k like looking at a battle from a distance. You cut out technicalities for game play on that scale. Epic is the same but zooming out even more.

2nd ed put alot more detail on technicalities and we all know how long it too to play one turn with half the models used in the current version!
Also with a sanding down of some of the realities of it all you dont get as many arguments. In 2nd ed you had varying types of cover... I swear sometimes half a game could be spent arguing if a model was in 'hard' or 'soft' cover.

Corporal Punishment
31-05-2006, 23:00
For some great reading on how shotguns or any other firearm performs, here is a great website. Some of the things that people assume about firearms are not necessarily true. And some of the things you think couldn't possibly happen, can happen. For example, a birdshot load in a shotgun would be lucky to seriously wound someone unless you managed to hit a critical area. Anywho, at the very least it's fun to blast the hell out of stuff and take pictures....

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot20.htm

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

Gotchaye
31-05-2006, 23:22
I'm in agreement with Khaine's Messenger, I think. But then, I think we all are to some extent. One has to be able to suspend disbelief in order for the game to be engaging.

The game is an abstraction, and so it doesn't need to fully represent all of the realities of war. We don't need rules for Termies sinking into the ground - it's assumed that they get around this. We don't need rules for whether there's dirt or pavement under a model's feet - it averages out and gets too complex.

The rules being unrealistic due to simplicity is acceptable. If the rules simply aren't complex enough to allow for something, it's assumed to be abstracted. I'm fine without to-hit modifiers or damage bonuses for close-range shotgun blasts. I think the game would be better with them, but it doesn't impact my ability to see a game as a battle between two fluff-based armies.

The problem (for me, anyway) is when the rules are perfectly capable of representing something, and either don't represent it or represent it incorrectly. Most of this takes the form of fluff-inconsistencies - weapons or units that, by rights, should be far better or worse than they are.

NCO
31-05-2006, 23:33
I take comfort in the notion that most things GW do defy logic. But I agree that gameplay is more important than realism when it comes to 40k. There's just nothing you can compare to to get realistic representation even if you wanted to.

I'm one of those people who want an accurcy modifier for weapon range but I do realise that in 40k the stats are just there to represents how effective a person is to another and doesn't really represents their physical attributes much.

I don't think I made much sense.

russian
31-05-2006, 23:43
I usually try to stick to "themes" rather then straight logic. Sort of how a super hero comic book will have a crazy logic to things, but will stay with that crazy idea as best it can.

A good example came up yesterday, A friend of mine was telling me about the stratgems for City of Death and how one of them makes Flamer templates higher strength. I thought this was a great idea and said how it would make my Eldar Warlocks with destructor very powerful.

My friend didn't like that idea at all and said that the strategem should only work for "fire based" template weapons. I disagree because they are both "template" weapons and have exactly the same game effect.

I could very well be wrong, but that is how I like to see 40k rules, tight little boxes of illogic. ;)

i belive its the power gen stratagem which is placed ina buildinmg and its any template not just flame templates aswell so it dont matter where the template comes from aslong as its within 6" of that building and if u own it

back to the point, well its a differant universe as such so im sure there is creative liecense in its physics, because liek you said if people want to debate fluff with weight of stuff they have to then take in context of how a deamon is summed ect :p take it with a pinch of salt that the fluff will alway be better than the game mechanics, and if you want a fluff list then im sure they could dig upa copy of the us wd witht he movie marines in, and see if they want to play games against that :p

bluebugs
01-06-2006, 00:13
and this spawns me and my main opponet's favorite quote "your making a big mistake combining logic and warhammer"

xThrakaYouFacex
01-06-2006, 03:55
GW's logic is measured in two ways: 1.) How much $$$ will it make the company 2.) d6

Morgrad
01-06-2006, 04:57
I actually think it would be great if they (well, not *them* - 'cause they suck at making rules) came out with Uber-Complicated-Really-Detailed-But-Super-Organized-So-You-Can-Understand-It-But-Takes-10-Hours-For-A-1500-Point-Game-But-Is-Fun-For-Both-Players-The-Whole-Time-40k. I'd play it.

That being said, 40k is about:
1. Beer and pretzels game-playing
2. Collecting wicked-cool minis

revford
01-06-2006, 09:31
For some great reading on how shotguns or any other firearm performs, here is a great website. Some of the things that people assume about firearms are not necessarily true. And some of the things you think couldn't possibly happen, can happen. For example, a birdshot load in a shotgun would be lucky to seriously wound someone unless you managed to hit a critical area. Anywho, at the very least it's fun to blast the hell out of stuff and take pictures....

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot20.htm

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

On a simular note Green Ronin publish a book called Ultramodern Firearms, it's a gamers guide to how guns and ammo work. The current edition gives stats for d20 Modern but explainations of how guns work and what different kinds of weapons are for is excellent, people who aren't from a gun culture like me can learn loads. I did.

Lord Lucifer
01-06-2006, 13:44
You know what I love about Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay?
One of the Rules clearly states that if one of my players attempts to apply logic to the game, I am fully justified to hit them with the rulebook.

Even the most whimsical rule makes real good sense after about the 4th blow :evilgrin:

Kriegsherr
01-06-2006, 14:47
A well, would be a nice idea to make some terrain dangerous for units with a 2+ save because of their weight..... or for vehicles

light buildings for example wouldn't support the weight of a tank. And they maybe should be destroyed if they failed their terrain test because they broke through the ground floor.

Thats of what terrain definitions are there.

Corporal Punishment
01-06-2006, 15:07
On a simular note Green Ronin publish a book called Ultramodern Firearms, it's a gamers guide to how guns and ammo work. The current edition gives stats for d20 Modern but explainations of how guns work and what different kinds of weapons are for is excellent, people who aren't from a gun culture like me can learn loads. I did.

Sounds like a very interesting book, I'll have to check that out. I can see your point about not being around guns.

Neknoh
01-06-2006, 15:35
Anyone in a real world army who threw men into a meat grinder assault OF DEATH! they way most 40K games go would be shot or medicated.

General Zjukov and Hitler both did this at the Battle for Stalingrad, Zjukov were later executed or dispatched of by Stalin because the guy was TOO popular amongst the people, Hitler took his own life. :evilgrin:

Meatgrinders can work, people have done it, although, in most western worlds today, anyone who did so would face the Military Court of War and get a good couple of years.


Now, on the topic of logics, I'd say that the terminators have some form of Anti-Grav to carry the weight of the Terminators, or, they have specially designed... shoes:eyebrows: that spread out, like some animals have very fleshy feet to avoid sinking. The Terminators may also have some form of mini-jet systems right below their feet, creating a small pillow of air that carries most or even all of the weight.

Titans most deffinately have some form of highpowered antigrav AND specialised feet, and probably the void shields also supports some of the weight.

sliganian
01-06-2006, 15:55
A well, would be a nice idea to make some terrain dangerous for units with a 2+ save because of their weight..... or for vehicles


Actually, the Astronomicon-East tournament in Oakville, Ontario (ok, ok, everyone says 'Toronto' but I am being specific) has a nifty rule for the 'Swamp Table' scenario: Movement in inches = Armour save of the model.

Now, this may match the 'Swamp Rules' Andy Hoare did, but I dont' remember what all of those rules were.

Vet.Sister
01-06-2006, 16:00
Well games designers all have to wrestle with 'playability' vs. 'realism'
You can have some of each, but they're kinda mutually exclusive. (ie, you can't have total playability AND total realism) Most designers try to strike a balance between the two, with maximum fun being the goal. Hence, some of GW more 'interesting' rules. ;)

Sai-Lauren
01-06-2006, 16:20
In terms of playing a game, it doesn't bother me.

Outside it though, when you start looking at the fluff, there's little nagging things - super-heavies, praetorians and titans should immobilse themselves through ground liquifaction, every single imperial flyer capable of re-entry should blow its wings off when the ammo and pylon mounted ordanance cooks off with re-entry heat (retractable weapons and internal weapons pods), grav-tech's supposedly rare, yet it seems that every single inquisitor has got at least three servo-skulls floating around him, terminators could never reload their weapons whilst in the armour and should really have belt feeds from their weapons into their suits, and so on.

It's not an issue with the universe as such and they certainly don't spoil my enjoyment of it, but it's an issue with the designers that come up with grand ideas, but never stop to think for a second whether it would actually be possible, and what it's effects would be.
Little niggles that show it's style over substance.

Kriegsherr
01-06-2006, 16:26
Actually, the Astronomicon-East tournament in Oakville, Ontario (ok, ok, everyone says 'Toronto' but I am being specific) has a nifty rule for the 'Swamp Table' scenario: Movement in inches = Armour save of the model.

Now, this may match the 'Swamp Rules' Andy Hoare did, but I dont' remember what all of those rules were.

I think they were a little bit different, and the first rules that tried to discourage people from using 3+ troops in swamps.

But anyway, something along the line of "Movement in inches = Armour save of the model" sounds great for movement in difficult terrain for normal infantry models. should be tried on a 50% wood table. In real jungle fighting marines would maybe be penalized too much, But on a cityfight table with enough open terrain like streets it might give light infantry some edge.
hmmmmm.....




It's not an issue with the universe as such and they certainly don't spoil my enjoyment of it, but it's an issue with the designers that come up with grand ideas, but never stop to think for a second whether it would actually be possible, and what it's effects would be.
Little niggles that show it's style over substance.


I for my part am just a little bit annoyed, that when they redesign stuff like the termis, they never wasted one second of thinking how the minis could be made better from a realistic point of view. I mean, some peoples say "Don't fix it if it ain't brokenú", and they're right, the termis are quite good (with the exception of the strange legs maybe) from a design view. But is it too much to give them ammo-storage integrated into their suits and belts leading to the weapons?

Only things like demons should be designed only with the Rule of Cool in mind, and even them deserve a big armour if they have a 3+... because having "Steel muscles" just isn't cool in my eyes

Fenrisian Wolf
01-06-2006, 16:48
Well put Mr. McCoy...I personally think the game would get way to bogged down if every little nuance was taken into account...we'd be rolling dice for one turn well into the next century if logic were to take over completely. It's a game people...have fun!

sliganian
01-06-2006, 18:30
Oh, and just to be part of problem here... ;)

My BIGGEST 'reality' issue in 40K is *drumroll* Assaulting Skimmers.
This applies to all sorts, but I will use Marines as an example.

Top of Turn 1:
Marine player says: "Ok, my LandSpeeder is over top of that beautifully modelled giant Red-wood forest." (which you would think are at least, oh, 20 metres high)

Bottom of Turn 1:
Opponent says: "Ok, my squad charges your LandSpeeder. Yay! The powerfist hit and brought it down!"

:wtf: Did they use a trampoline for the Assault? Backpack mounted ladders?

Skimmers would NEVER be even be NEAR the ground. I mean, is what would be going through the Marines head?

"Brother Bill and Brother Ted were strafing the battlefield with their Speeder's Assault Cannon and Heavy Bolter from on high. Suddenly they spot an enemy squad in the open. "I know," says Bill, "I will dive down towards them and try to slice them in half with my wing." "Verrily!", says Ted, "for it makes more sense to get really close to them rather than sitting up here and shooting them." :rolleyes:

Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest. Thanks for listening.

Apollyon
01-06-2006, 18:59
It's why I play FOW instead of 40K now. The history(or fluff) reads like you would expect to see played on the table top. True in FOW not in 40K .



Cruising the GW boards and I stumbled upon a post about how much a Broadside weighs. Someone threw out a rather large number, and the original poster's response was "Wow, that must have some hard time in soft ground!", to which the response was "Well, so would Terminators, but they don't sink." And, as most things do, it got me thinking.

Where does logic belong in the rule set, and where do we just need to admit that sometimes summoning a Demon from a different universe isn't exactly going to go normally according to Newtonian physics? Where do you, personally, feel the rules need to focus on game mechanics, and stop representing fluff?

I've seen arguments for differentiating Inv. saves to include dodge saves, and countless threads asking for to-hit modifiers...but if you bring those in to the argument, who's to stop with requests like the above mentioned "Weight in Difficult Terrain" details and such? I for one think fluff should stay in the novels, and game mechanics can just be..."Creatively Described" to at least support fluff in concept. But maybe that's just me...

Other thoughts?

---Slim

AgentZero
02-06-2006, 01:04
Cruising the GW boards and I stumbled upon a post about how much a Broadside weighs. Someone threw out a rather large number, and the original poster's response was "Wow, that must have some hard time in soft ground!", to which the response was "Well, so would Terminators, but they don't sink." And, as most things do, it got me thinking.

Where does logic belong in the rule set, and where do we just need to admit that sometimes summoning a Demon from a different universe isn't exactly going to go normally according to Newtonian physics? Where do you, personally, feel the rules need to focus on game mechanics, and stop representing fluff?

Other thoughts?

---Slim

There is no logic.
It's a game, so you need to surpress some reality.Well, a ton really:p
If you want real life action, join the armed forces or play one of them WW II games that takes 2 weeks to make one move.
A lot of the game mechanics don't make sense.Fluff contradicts game mechanics and vice versa.
The time frames don't always gel.
The level of Imperial technology is inconsistent across the various factions.
A lot of things just don't make sense.
Weapon strength and AP don't translate into realworld power/effects etc...



Broadsides are larger than Termies. Broadsides are smaller than tanks.
They won't weight that much. Elephants don't sink in soft ground, why would a Broadside?

Chem-Dog
02-06-2006, 01:24
:wtf: Did they use a trampoline for the Assault? Backpack mounted ladders?

The logical answer would be that they climbed the tree :p

OR

The speeder got low down as soon as possible to avoid any anti-aircraft measures that might be in place.

This isn't really a question about logic though, Heavy troops sinking/not sinking etc it's about levels of detail, the fact that most battles take place on a planet with air that's breathable enough for humans to survive and Gravity near that of earth is just an abstraction has nothing to do with being logical or not (though it's reasonabll logical to assume that a majority of the Imperium's worlds will be worlds that can support human life).

Apollyon
02-06-2006, 05:10
Play FOW once and you will realise how bad 40k really is. A FOW battle plays QUICKER than 40K and units preform more or less how you would expect them to historically where 40k units play nothing like the fluff.



There is no logic.
It's a game, so you need to surpress some reality.Well, a ton really:p
If you want real life action, join the armed forces or play one of them WW II games that takes 2 weeks to make one move.
A lot of the game mechanics don't make sense.Fluff contradicts game mechanics and vice versa.
The time frames don't always gel.
The level of Imperial technology is inconsistent across the various factions.
A lot of things just don't make sense.
Weapon strength and AP don't translate into realworld power/effects etc...



Broadsides are larger than Termies. Broadsides are smaller than tanks.
They won't weight that much. Elephants don't sink in soft ground, why would a Broadside?

starlight
02-06-2006, 05:17
<skips to the end>

It's a game written by 20-something guys who liked playing games with their mates.

Attemting to bring any logic at all to the world of GW is like trying to explain why people spend billions of dollars/pounds/etc to watch other people chase a ball around a grass field or a chunk of rubber around a sheet of ice, when teachers and nurses are drastically underpaid and kids are obese. Don't even bother....GW doesn't make simulators, they make games.

Nurglitch
02-06-2006, 05:26
GW's designers produce ad hoc and illogical games maybe. But Epic: Armageddon, Warmaster, and Blood Bowl are all quite elegant. Likewise Go and Chess are games, and yet they strike me as logical somehow. ;)

scarvet
02-06-2006, 13:03
Well, it is always fun to apply our law of the universe into anotherone. There is a guy in Japan write books about how "realistic" the animates are. And he does it so nicely i think I should do that on 40k.....maybe tomorrow, I will put something on the backgound thread