I do not know if I am alone in this, but I have been trying to get my mind around the ground combat rules, and for some reason it does not seem to compute. Now I am not an inexperienced wargamer and a bit of a military historian, so I dare to say that I am in a position to judge the way in which a game system tries to portray reality, with all the caveats that apply to war games and armchair specialists.

But, it seems to me the rules are so random that they do not even approach viability. Let's take an example (and I do hope my count is incorrect and the system is proven to work).

On one side we have the feral impi recruited by RT Lobengula, on the other side the Infantry Regiment (as in three bataljons of infantry) by RT von Choltitz.

The Impi is 2000 men of feral light infantry elite (you have to grant the zulu or matabele Impi's their astounding morale), organised as a real world Impi, with plenty of spears, shields and here and there a primitive gun. Together, this adds up to feral (-1 P, AM +30) light (-2 P, AM 0) infantry (+4 P,AM 0) elite ( AM -30), for a grand total of a STR 200 Power 1 Armour 2 Move 20 Morale 100 Unit, doing 1+4d10 damage with an AM of 0.

The Infantry Regiment is based on a classical German infantry regiment of WWII, with its weaponry of personal weapons, general purpose machine guns and mortars. Nothing really fancy. This gets me a technologcial (+2 P, AM 0) medium ( AM -10) infantry (AM 0) professional (AM -10) unit of 3000 men, for a grand total of STR 300 Power 6 Armour 12 Move 20 Morale 80 Unit, doing 6+4D10 damage with an AM of -20.

So, this means that my MG42's with their 1500 rounds/minute (cyclic, admitted) of which I have a good 150 in my regiment will only do an average of 6 points damage more then the admittedly sharp and pointy spears of the Impi? Hmmm, I do happen to remember that in the first Matabele war a couple of maxim guns were enough to break the entire Matabele army. And wait, I nearly forgot, why deploy 2000 Matabele when 1000 will do exactly the same damage and have exactly the same morale. Did I say a 1000? Silly me, 100 Matabele will do that damage, even if they will be wiped out in a moment. And if I face this Impi with the might of an Imperial Guard Armoured Bataljon (well, 31 tanks, that is about 200 men isn't it, let's make it 250 with support), so Veteran (AM -20) medium (AM -10) modern (+3 P, AM -10) Armour (+7 P, AM -10) I just get a STR 25 Power 10 Armour 14 Move 140 Morale 90 Unit doing 10+4D10 damage with a whopping AM of -40. A 1000 man Zulu Impi versus 31 Leman Russ tanks and they would crush the unit in one turn with a slightly above average roll? This really strains my suspension of disbelief.

So, clearly size doesn't matter. If you have a Soviet style Artillery division or a single battery, the only thing it does is give you more resilience. Oh, please.

But that is not all. This aquisition bit, seems skewed as well. Do I make a silly mistake, or did they forget size? Why raise a bataljon of you can raise a regiment, no, a division, or why no corps? If I go to a forge world, why not try to aquire 1000 Leman Russ tanks instead of that dozen I had in mind...the aquisition roll is just the same isn't it. I can always subdivide it later in bataljons.

I guess I will go and conquer the universe with my vast unstoppable zulu armies.

Friedrich van Riebeeck, Navigator Primus, heart of the Void

They do have a size modifier in there somwhere. But you are right on the size problems, my suggestion is to use comparable sizes on every side.

No 100 companies fighting a division, everyone gets a division or companies, its not a choice.

The technogy edge i had always represented as ease of use, refering to lasguns. Feral guys can hold lasguns, but they wont shoot as straight as a Panzergrenadier.

Not as in actual equipment.

But yeah, that BFK chapter wasnt really nedded. It actually dumps enough problems in your lap, that it replcaes the problems of not having rules for mass combat, with having problems with a ruleset.

If feral troops get lasguns and the like to deal with modern foes, why would they be so incredibly more easy to aquire? I would count the equipment of a unit as its tech level, not the planet. And the idea that a primitive economy would make it easier to raise troops is absolute nonsense. A tribe might be able to mobilise all its males and they might (I stress might, as it is an exception) even be good warriors, but much more then a bit of irregular warfare is all they will be able to manage. So getting large amounts of troops from primitive worlds is a bit of a nono. A planet with a scattered population of, say, 5 million humans, living in a feral state and waging constant war with feral orks and the environment is not an ideal place to raise troops. Rather go to a hive city of billions, they have an easy surplus.

Then we have the subdivision problem. Comparable size units and their fighting power are vastly misrepresented. Take my 250 men tank battalion. To imagine it only has 3 more power then a 250 men infantry unit is more then ludicrous. Let's look at the weaponry, say, two imperial guard companies, with together about 42 heavy infantry weapons (30 in the 6 platoons, 12 in two weapon platoons), with the firepower of their personal weapons added. The 31 Leman Russ tanks have no less then 93 comparable heavy weapons in the sponson and frontal mounts and most importantly, 31 heavy cannon in their turrets. Under full armour and fully mobile. Now, terrain might mitigate the mobility and firepower of tanks, but this still does not explain that very limited power difference, of the infantry fighting doing 7+4D10 damage with Armour 14 vrs the tanks doing 10+4D10 damage with armour 20.

But this is not the only subdivision problem. Say, we try to give a reasonably accurate depiction of an classical infantry division, giving it 9 battalions of infantry, 1 battalion of tanks and 4 battalions of artillery. And for the sake of accuracy, we give them 4 logistics battalions, one for each regiment, one for the division. Mainstay if the Imperial Guard such a unit. Now, that means one 15000 to 20000 men unit is allready divided in 18 subunits, and we will keep more armour, flak, more artillery and sundry extras on corps and above level. I see no other way to represent a combined arms force with these rules, but I guess you allready start asking why I am not just starting a wargame now. And it is not that I do not enjoy wargaming, but that I can find a host of better rulesets to fight out my battles.

FVR

simple answer: you are right those rules are a gigantic pile of horsecrap that ought to be discarded due to:

1. being overcomplicated

2. not representing the actuality of warfare in any degree whatsoever

3. imo not entirely in the spirit of the game anyway. The game centers around a retinue, not around the battles their armies fight. Personally i prefer to keep those vague in the background and have the characters' actions be those that decide the day in the end.

4. did i already say they're insanely complicated (though tbh this is a bit of a theme for battle rules i notice)?

Badlapje said:

I guess my group doesn't play in the spirit of the game. We seldom if ever operate together - never as a retinue of all PCs. Every one of us has redshirts with us to command and we keep in contact through our Astropath or vox. Still the rules are complicated and silly - it can be simplified and yet still more realistic. I think some one has posted what is a better version in the house rules section.

Also, you can't really say its not in the spirit of the game - the 1st every army list from the book that spawned this entire WH40K franchise is the Rogue Trader Army list.

Yeah they are too complicated.

The RT i have in my group is a WW2 fanatic. He knows the German equipment inside out, and we game Flames of war every other week or so. Yes he wants the biggest ship possible, so that he can put in the biggest amount of troops possible.

I am currently considering making up my own ground rules based on FOW instead. I also have all those nice models lying around. Could be nice to do a whole campaign once he starts true conquest of planets. And 40k numbers concerning soldiers are small when compared against all out warfare of the first half of the forties last century. I have started getting to know those numbers as well. 40k is like childs play compared against some of the bigger operations back then.

So basically it is very much in the spirit of the game, if the RT wants to be the 2nd Lord Solar Macharius. Hrmm maybe ill allow him to lead a shadow of a crusade. This has given me an idea.... Now he only needs to have the ambition to conquer all of the expanse, while the Imperium is busy in the Jericho Reach.

Ooh, I so fully agree on the numbers. Conquering one hive planet is not a 'brushfire war' as the rules might suggest, but will involve armies millions and tens of millions strong. Just consider the troops the USSR raised during WW II: out of a population of about 170 million they raised 35 million warriors (these are approximations). Now image what an Imperial hive city will do if war stand at its footsteps. Sure, there are the dregs of society that are not registered, numbering countless millions who cannot be efficiently mobilised. But there are scores of millions who are registered, and we can be quite sure that every hive would mobilise every soul able to hold a weapon (or take the weapon from his just killed comrade in good Russian emergency style) if there is a Xenos invasion threatening its very existance. No, for real total war we have to look far further then tabletop games, where only a small part of any battle can be played out.

This will by the way limit the role of Space Marines. They might be the elite of the elite, superhuman soldiers incomparable to any of their foes, but there are only so many of them. Superhuman combat skill and strong power armour only help for so much if you find yourself in the midst of an artillery bombardment. Like the 40,000 guns and mortars opening the attack on Berlin. If an Imperial Commander has Space Marines at his disposal, he will use them as crucial reserves, to be used at the point of decision only and in such a way that their enormous mobility can be used to the fullest (Thunderhawks, drop pods and the like). The brunt of the fighting, the killing and the dieing will be in the hands of the Imperial Guard. Quantity has a quality of its own.

FvR

Think Tiger or King Tiger.

The Fire brigades of WW2.

The infantry held the lie and the Panzer divisions went where the brunt of tfighting was thickest.

Elite Tiger (strange wording since tiger crews already were elite) got kill rates of more than 10:1. Which is incidentally what earlier SM codices gave as a hint at how effective a single Space Marine is compared against a normal Guardsman. Maybe the number is even higher.

But essentially if Marines attack in a mostly commando fashion (The raid of St. nazaire, maybe with less casualties) they can still have very crucial roles on the battlefield.

But yes a single hvie planet can pump out a billion of basic soldiers. Potentially more.

I've always been under the impression that when the Commander ran into that stalemate in a battle, that point when his push's momentum falters and both sides are digging in, he calls the Space Marines. Their mobility is not due to vehicles, but because they can (by and large) treat the heavy weapon squads of the enemy as less then riflemen, and so they need not get pinned down until they run into anti-tank weaponry. This, combined with the tactical flexibility granted by carrying everything from Bolters (the elite version presented by the TT game, not the nerfed DH version. Also, the SoB had these too, there you are Lynata ) that tear through armour and cover like so much paper all the way to heavy Bolters and Missile Launchers and great grenades. So it's less a true mobility factor as it is a juggernaut that (in a move quite similar to the Panzers') simply blows over and through the opposition, leaving a gaping hole to be filled by either reserve Tactical squads or Imperial Guard.

Of course, this is the blunt application of Space Marine sledgehammer, and they are as functional in swift surgical strikes to decapitate enemies or destroy critical facilities, and they do have the mobility granted by Thunderhawks and Drop Pods.The point is SMs tip the scales, they are never meant to be used as trench-fillers.

Anyways, I agree the ground rules are pretty garbage. A quality rework by FFG in a supplement/errata or in the houserules would serve better for my Skitarii.

Space Marines might be used to add just that extra bit to a push to make it succeed, but I guess the Imperial Guard would first call in their own reserves: Armoured and Mechanised Corps, Shock Troops, heavy Armour battalions (no Tigers here, but the Imperial variant of the Maus!) and Artillery Divisions. The unique manoeuvrability of Space Marines (indeed, Thunderhawks and drop pods) makes them most of all the ultimate weapon in what the Soviets properly called 'Deep Battle', striking far behind the lines and following this up with armoured thrusts. Think of them as the ulitmate para/heloborne troops, excelling one on one, very well equipped and with astounding operational mobility. Their comparative lack of armour (they have some of the best around, but those are hard to deploy in great numbers by drop pod or Thunderhawk) restrains their tactical mobility and firepower when they are on the ground, so this is something to take into account as well. Best place them where there are no hostile tank divisions and heavy artillery too close.

But if the moment is indeed crucial, and Space Marines are just that reserve that might get on the spot in time (and what is more precious then time in warfare?), then indeed, they should be thrown into the maelstrom of battle, braving the worst and winning the day for the God-Emperor. Which reminds me, there should be 'recovery' rules. Casualties in battle are almost always mostly wounded and good medical treatment will mean a big difference as to the losses, both on short and on the long term. And Space Marines should have a very high chance to survive their wounds, with blood loss sealing on itself, redundant vital organs taking over the function of damaged parts of the body, the armour injecting them with medicae drugs, etc. etc. Might make a good adventure, save the wounded Space Marines. If you can beat their battle brothers too it, you get some serious kudos and a pat on the back of the chaplain.

FvR

P.S. The German Tiger battalions have performed prodigious feats of military skill, check out von Strachwitz, one of the greatest virtuosos of tank warfare. Less known then a Wittman, but a greater tactical leader in my opinion.

Agreed. Casualties since the ancient warfare have always mostly been injuries rather than outright death. Of course, injuries can lead to death - especially if adequate medical care is lacking. Medical care however is not miraculous and will not replenish your severely injured forces so they can fight the next day, maybe medical care can be used like the triage extended action and as bonus to upkeep of forces after a battle?

Certainly not next day, but in the general attrition of a real war, good medical services can make a serious differences. Just take Afghanistan, where the Russians suffered about 15,000 KIA and 54,000 WIA out of 620,000 deployed, but no less then 416,000 troops contracted some nasty diseases that put them at least temporarily out of action (both the climate and the Russian lean fighting formations with a limited logistic tail accounted for this). Practically this meant that a three battalion regiment could often only put a one battalion fighting force in the field, with adjustment made for guard duties, training and sundry. And that makes a serious difference.

FvR

I remember reading somewhere about ancient Greek warfare, when it was customary to call truce at the end of a battle to collect the dead and wounded. Seems in those days, KIA casualties were usually around 10% while wounded around 90%.

Your soviet KIA numbers indicate about 21.7% KIA which would account for increased lethality of weapons after 2000 years of weapons development. Honestly, I don't see the % rising higher than this unless genocide or mass capture/enslavment is conducted after each and every battle. Factions who would conduct genocide include the Imperium, Necrons & Tyranids, while those who capture/enslave would include Eldar (dark & corsairs) & Chaos.

I believe you missed a decimal there with the Soviet percentage. On the whole, fighting a guerrilla war causes fairly limited casualties to an advanced military organisation as a whole (even if individual units might suffer a lot and guerrillas face in rule devastating casualties), but imposes a continuous morale drain. This might sound a bit strange at a moment that each week casualties in that same Afghanistan mount, but the sad fact is that those attrition rates are nothing compared to high intensity warfare.

Battlefield casualties (as opposed to disease and general attrition) do indeed have a high proportion of wounded as too unwounded. In modern warfare by an advanced military of the 100% casualties 20% to 25% are on average KIA, 5% die of wounds and the rest are wounded (from maimed for life to a lucky scratch). The casualty percentage of a unit itself depends a lot on what it does and where it fights. If you are unlucky enough to belong to the Legions trashed by Hannibal in Cannae, we get an amazing amount of over 45,000 deaths out of 80,000 engaged. But that was probably one of the bloodiest battles of antiquity. A Soviet Rifle Division (probably the best thing to compare an Imperial Guard Unit with) would almost literally be used up. They were thrown in the fray, fought on till most of the infantry was a casualty (and Soviets did not believe in too extensive medical treatment or silly bourgeois nonsense as shellshock), then were pulled out of the fight to be reconstituted. This all of course when the Soviets had the initiative and could allow themselves not to fight up their units entirely. But even in this rifle division, that might go from about 10,000 men to about 3,000/4,000 in a matter of days of intensive fighting, casualty rates would vastly differ. Trained troops such a communications specialists, artillery and the like would suffer far less then the always suffering infantry.

How to translate this to RT is of course the difficult question. At the moment, the largest deployable units we have availiable in our campaign are of battalion strength. So against big targets, there is little we can do. We allready decided not to use the ground warfare rules, as they really are no more then an unworkable attempt to reach a ground combat system that resembles as much as possible the space combat system. Or so it seems to me. In se this is a commendable idea, but the practical result in which this got translated is not. Most of it is handled narrative style at the moment, with flashpoints determining the general flow and our dispositions crucial for the outcome. Something that works quite nicely, but would be better if backed up by a decent ruleset that would allow the GM to let the dice fly high. And cookies for whom recognises that quote.

FvR

Tactica Imperialis: How to conquer a planet.

1. Scan the planet from orbit.

2. Find the 2nd largest city.

3. Fire a salvo of the ship's guns down at that city.

4. Make the enemies know that you will continue bombing them until they surrender.

5. If they surrender, round up their leaders and make them work for you.

6. If they don't surrender, repeat step 3 and 4.

7. Leave the rest of it up to the administratum.

8. Go have a cigar, you've earned it.

9. And a glass of fine whisky.

10. For the God-Emperor!

Would an Imperial World surrender under the threat of Orbital Bombardment? It might, if you play your diplomatic cards well, but if the Planetary Governor, Ecclesiarchy, Imperial Guard, Arbites and whatever the Imperium can further mobilise will hold their nerve, grit their teeth and fight on? Germany fought on while its cities where pounded to rubble and its people driven from the East and Japan only surrendered when faced with the threat of total annihilation, knowing that at least they were surrendering to humans. Imagine what the resilience of a traitor planet might be, where daemons strengthen the resolve to fight on. Or the akward problem of asymetric warfare. Obliterating Hive Cities is one thing, finding every pesky tribe of orks a quite different one. But, obviously, one can always try if the quick threat and execution of strategic warfare works. Nothing lost to give it a shot.

FvR

Agreed, the rules are garbage. I've been trying to figure out WTF were they thinking but that too is a wasted effort.

My greatest surprise is why they didn't treat Ground units like Ships. Ground units essentially have the same characteristics. Then again, they'd have to come up with armaments and the like. I'm half tempted to armchair a few ideas and see what it's like. Some stats should translate more accurately like Armor and Speed, where others like Wounds will be abstracted to a "horde". If they were more like ships then Morale would play a bigger role. Right now, snipers and skirmishers are meaningless because there's no lasting morale penalties or moral "attacks" like there are on ships (FIRE!). Treating them like ships would also handle certain situations like the mentioned "Hive Defense." That would be like attacking a "Mass Conveyor" trading vessel. It has virtually no armor, relatively weak armaments, but LOTS of mass to absorb damage. A Company of Space Marines (unless it's 1st Company) wouldn't face it head on because they couldn't wipe them out - too much "hull." They'd use long range to break them up before making an assault. Then, just to spice it up, terrain and fortifications could add defensive or offensive value. There should be a rock-paper-scissors effect between armor-infantry-air giving bonuses and penalties based on types.

I'm interested, but not that interested. Yet...