Something I've been mulling over for a while is that when it comes to talking about tactics in 40K, 99% of the time the discussion revolves around what units to pick or what to put in an army, or what wargear options to take. Go look at the tactics forum here or nearly anywhere else. And it made me realize that very little discussion takes place around actual table-level tactical choices. We talk about "what" to put in an army, but rarely talk about "how" to best use a given unit.
I think that when we're talking about army lists, we are really talking about our "strategy" and how we envision a given list being used to accomplish the mission's objectives. Deep strike unit X onto objective Y, flank with unit Z, etc. These strategies are, by nature, fairly broad and idealistic. And as the saying goes no plan survives contact with the enemy!
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?
A large part is list building and generally knowing how game mechanics work.some table top tactics are already generally ingrained in playstyle for the army.
It seems pretty obvious: whether real or perceived theres an at-least subconscious understanding and belief that listbuilding strategy matters more than tabletop level tactics do to the outcome of a game.
I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?
I don't know that that is true. If you handed a top-tier player an army list that they had never used before and know nothing about and told them to play with 5 minutes time to familiarize themselves with the army, they probably won't do well. Likewise its not uncommon to hear top-tier players discuss how they tried to play a certain army and just couldn't wrap their heads around how to play them and had to abandon said army. That being said, top-tier players who are given time to familiarize themselves with an army and build and fine tune their own army lists (this is the key part right here), will generally do pretty well with said army though won't necessarily be able to eke out consistent top finishes with more than a couple of their armies. Its very rare to see a player who knows how to win consistently with *every* army. The "skill" that the top tier really have is, more than anything else, knowing what their army does, how it functions, and how all the pieces of the army fit together and what tools and resources they bring to the table - this is why a top tier player using a non-meta list they wrote themselves will almost always outperform a mediocre player using an optimized WAAC meta list that they found online, and why in general those online meta net-lists generally never do as well as competitively outside of the hands of the people who wrote them in the first place.
Mezmorki wrote: Something I've been mulling over for a while is that when it comes to talking about tactics in 40K, 99% of the time the discussion revolves around what units to pick or what to put in an army, or what wargear options to take. Go look at the tactics forum here or nearly anywhere else. And it made me realize that very little discussion takes place around actual table-level tactical choices. We talk about "what" to put in an army, but rarely talk about "how" to best use a given unit.
I think that when we're talking about army lists, we are really talking about our "strategy" and how we envision a given list being used to accomplish the mission's objectives. Deep strike unit X onto objective Y, flank with unit Z, etc. These strategies are, by nature, fairly broad and idealistic. And as the saying goes no plan survives contact with the enemy!
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?
Because there's so many variables that go into how you approach the terrain and the opponent's army. I might be willing to use the move characteristic of Armigers more liberally if my opponent doesn't have a way to threaten them decisively or I have a good lane of obscuring terrain.
You might find yourself changing your plans when you see the opponent by flipping into an ability that reduces movement on a unit and then drop an orbital bombardment on a key unit, but HOW that comes into play matters at the table and is hard to pass on at the tactics forum.
Good players understand their army, the opponent's army, and squeeze every inch ( literally and figuratively ) out of what they can do.
Perhaps it is easier to discuss list-building because you need less context? The opponents and terrain can affect how a give unit performs, but most armies have a few baseline lists. Discussing tabletop manoeuvre on a forum is a little trickier. Often you need a map or diagrams to make a point.
There are certainly tabletop tactics that are useful to know regarding movement, charging, fight sequence, nuances of pile-in and consolidate etc. These little things can make a big difference. There can also be general tactical advice about how to win 9th Ed missions to include Secondary selection and scoring.
I'm a 30 year army officer, and real-world tactics are pretty simple when you boil them down. Some guy named Karl once wrote that everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult...
1. List building is easy to talk about because it's pretty much divorced from the context of the battlefield. You can attempt to compare units to each other to determine which is best. Everyone understands the goal of list building and it's fairly easy to have objective discussions about units.
2. 40k is, at its heart, a pretty shallow game tactically speaking. That makes the list-building stage more important in many ways than tabletop decisions. Most in-game decisions are actually pretty simple and the ones that aren't usually require too much context around things like terrain and other non-fixed criteria to allow for meaningful discussion.
There's a couple things here: variation of terrain, opponent, opponent's army (when their faction has that option), and the local meta (ie, is it vehicle heavy, 80% marine, little fast stuff, etc).
The other side is some units (or armies) don't need a lot of discussion. Those ork Lootas are going want to be in position to shoot, and they never really want to _not_ be shooting without a really, really good reason. So there isn't much to actually discuss beyond what kind of terrain is available to put them in and 'put them in stationary trukk? Yes/no.'
A similarly mono-khorne daemon no soup army doesn't have much to discuss in terms of tactics. If skullcannons and soulgrinders-> they shoot. Rest of army runs for melee and/or bloodletter bombs.
A lot of people will say 40k is all about the lists so that's why that's the discussion. This was true in the past. It's improved though. The real reason is because there's too many variables.
1. Nobody uses the same terrain. We can't help you with battlefield movements when no one knows or agrees on what the battlefield looks like.
2. Different missions are going to change things up. Advice has to be conditioned on each mission.
Asking for advice on these means laying this all out with pics and/or descriptions. It means arranging models to show movements beyond deployment. Replying means the same. Just too hard to do for most forum discussion.
Ye-esss, you're more or less correct that most discussion of units hinges on their strategic value.
And many other posters have done a good job of pointing out several reasons for this - it's hard to describe the tactical use or best tactical response for a given unit in a given situation, because we don't know the given situation.
However, maybe what you're looking for is something along the lines of "Space Marine bikers put out 4 S4 shots each at 24 inches, and they can move 14 inches, so their threat range is 38 inches. If you want to subsequently charge, that threat range is about 20-21 inches. So bikers are tactically useful in situations where you have open sight lines and can see a unit that will be impacted by S4 shooting in the 25-30 inch range, and another unit that you want to tie up or is really weak in the 18-21 inch range."
Another thing that is very relevant to the game is unit activation sequence. If you activate another unit before the bikers and it shoots into the 18-21 inch distant unit so that the bikers can no longer reach it, you've made a tactical mistake, so you have to bear that in mind too.
I do find there is a dearth of table play advice content in the 40k community compared to a lot of wargames I've played.
I think that contributes to the amount of recorded games I see where players just YOLO their army forward. That just happened in the recent TTT game of Ultras versus Necrons. Worse, the chat conversation went to list comp and faction balance when Ultras got blown out rather than the poor play that was the largest contributing factor.
I was more convinced that lists won until I played more and more.
I mean, a very good list will most of the time win agaisnt a bad list.
But once you are on the table it is not soo easy to actually play in the right way. Most players, myself included ,are actually below mediocre, and thats normal, you can't be good at a game you plat what... 1-2 times a week? And thats a lot for most people. 3-4 games a month is much more normal.
People play dozens and dozens of games of their favourite videogames each month and they still suck at them.
Because frankly, actual tactics are incredibly difficult to talk about. HOW you use a unit as opposed to WHICH unit to use is really tough to actually describe.
Galas wrote: But once you are on the table it is not soo easy to actually play in the right way. Most players, myself included ,are actually below mediocre, and thats normal, you can't be good at a game you plat what... 1-2 times a week? And thats a lot for most people. 3-4 games a month is much more normal.
People play dozens and dozens of games of their favourite videogames each month and they still suck at them.
It definitely takes time to process everything. I forgot for a while that you gain a CP each turn. Another is the rule change where if you save with a model that model takes all future saves that phase, so if you shoot terminators with bolters and the SS takes it then when you shoot with a new unit with bigger guns then that SS model has to take those shots again even if it was never wounded.
COVID definitely makes it difficult to play enough and once we start gaming again we'll see tons of people playing catch up on the details.
Mezmorki wrote: Something I've been mulling over for a while is that when it comes to talking about tactics in 40K, 99% of the time the discussion revolves around what units to pick or what to put in an army, or what wargear options to take. Go look at the tactics forum here or nearly anywhere else. And it made me realize that very little discussion takes place around actual table-level tactical choices. We talk about "what" to put in an army, but rarely talk about "how" to best use a given unit.
I think that when we're talking about army lists, we are really talking about our "strategy" and how we envision a given list being used to accomplish the mission's objectives. Deep strike unit X onto objective Y, flank with unit Z, etc. These strategies are, by nature, fairly broad and idealistic. And as the saying goes no plan survives contact with the enemy!
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?
This is exactly one of the many reasons why i still play 5th edition and hate 9th. objectives that matter at the end of the game(allowing for some "last chance" pull victory out of defeat by the skin of your teeth type battles you may have been loosing on body count) and change drastically if the games random roll goes to turn 6 or 7, maneuver around and use of terrain to your advantage, targeting priority, building a single well rounded list that can deal with all aspects of the battlefield(easier to do with marines as generalists) no matter what army you face..
The luck of the dice will always play into it of course, however the key difference in editions to me is one wins on the battlefield, the other wins in the list design/building stage. because of the latter you see so much focus now on building as you pointed out.
Back when 4th and 5th were the current edition we had a regular tournament minded player who would constantly build copies of lists that were event winners(rouge traders and grand tournaments), but he would often fail with them because the list itself wasn't going to win the game and when he didn't know how to use it properly on the table he would often face frustrating losses.
I think rather than saying a very good player would win with a bad list against a poor player with a good list, there is a better way to look at the influence of how the list is played.
As others have said, familiarity with a list, and a faction and all the special rules and synergies is as important, if not more so than the list itself. Not that the list isn't important, but to me, being a "good" player means hitting 3 things: Having a good list, knowing your list and how to play it, and generally knowing and being good at the game (core mechanics).
A better comparison to determine if the playing of the game is important rather than just the list, would be to have a mirror match, where both players have the same list, and are equally familiar with the list. In this hypothetical, I would expect the tabletop tactics to be the deciding factor, and the "good" player would win more often than not.
You know those chess tactics puzzles and analyses that you see in the back of the paper? Like the board is laid out and what would you do? Someone should do a series of those for 40K.
Not me i'm too new to 9th and haven't got time. Maybe one day when i've retired (can't wait for 15th edition it's gonna be best yet!).
It definitely takes time to process everything. I forgot for a while that you gain a CP each turn. Another is the rule change where if you save with a model that model takes all future saves that phase, so if you shoot terminators with bolters and the SS takes it then when you shoot with a new unit with bigger guns then that SS model has to take those shots again even if it was never wounded.
Oh this one is a good one, people here play it wrong. they do all saves on the same model, but on a unit per unit basis. Very thankful for this information.
As others have pointed out a lot of it is that each tactical puzzle on the board is unique. You've got a fairly unique combination of terrain, enemy units and your own deployment to consider. So most of the discussion happens at the table with your opponent ("Man, I really should have moved those Warriors up to the higher ground earlier in the game...") and is difficult to generalise into a topic that is easily discussed with strangers online. Lists are universal, standard, and everyone has access to the same information to discuss them, making them ideal for discussion online.
I think list building also has a greater impact on play than it should in 40K because spurring this discussion is good for engagement with the hobby and so the designers make it part of the game. You see this in other similar hobbies, like most discussion of dungeons and dragons online is about building certain characters and the relative merits of new classes and abilities in the abstract. This gives people something hobby related to do when they are not playing, which is cool and not a bad thing.
Personally I am a bit over all of it myself for various reasons. I'm not as interested in optimising lists any more and just want to play with my favourite models when I get a chance to play (which is rare).
Knowledge of other factions is critical too. That's becoming harder and harder. At one time you could know what the various units in an opponent's list did, what their defensive stats were, the unit type would give you their movement etc. Now there are way more factions, way more units, chapter tactics/hive fleets/kultures etc., more psychic powers, lots of relics and stratagems. You'd have to be real die hard to know all of this stuff
Given that, it seems advantageous to run a simple list that mostly plays one way regardless of the opponent. If 80% of your army are CC beatsticks you know what you have to do. A balanced mix of units could leave you open to making big mistakes
PaddyMick wrote: You know those chess tactics puzzles and analyses that you see in the back of the paper? Like the board is laid out and what would you do? Someone should do a series of those for 40K.
Not me i'm too new to 9th and haven't got time. Maybe one day when i've retired (can't wait for 15th edition it's gonna be best yet!).
It's a cool idea and would be great if somebody could pull it off, but the difference with chess is a quick glance at the table only tells you part of the story. What powers do the psykers have, what are the relics and where, how many CP are available, what are the actual distances, how many wounds is everything on? You'd have to study the lists too. It would take forever just to figure out what the situation actually is, before you even considered what moves to make
I find that 9th favours a player that makes a turn by turn plan for the game. Flexibility is required, but you need to decide how you are going to score by turn. Waiting until the end of the game to think about objectives will not work. You need to visualize (roughly) where your units will be in time and space. You can't just rely on blasting the enemy off the board.
Do you send a small but powerful fixing force up one flank to distract your opponent, deny an objective and tie up some of his key units while your main effort runs up the other flank to be able to score more? Do you dominate the centre with something incredibly resilient? How do you select and score your Secondaries? There are tactical decisions beyond list-building, although of course list-building can determine which tactics are viable for you.
Another issue when discussing tactics is that a lot of the things from other games (or IRL) doesn't translate into 40k. Units have 360 degree los, there's no penalty to being attacked from unexpected side, and the game has no Command and control aspects to speak of- heroes don't command, they just give buffs. At best clever manouvering will get you no cover bonus to the target.
So in the end it mostly comes down to target priority- knowing what is the biggest immediate danger and firing on it first.
As others have said, real tactics are hard to discuss.
You see those discussions going on in the commentary of battle reports, because in that case you have the info required.
On a discussion board though that will not happen. That sort of discussion would be too specific and too much of an hassle.
By the way, to compete a good list is required. What you don't need is a meta list. "Good" list means just that it has been assembled with a decent rational. You don't need to spam your meta units to make a good list. The difference between a decently assembled list and a meta list isn't that big, it can give you that little edge over the opponent, but players count for much more than that.
Mezmorki wrote: Something I've been mulling over for a while is that when it comes to talking about tactics in 40K, 99% of the time the discussion revolves around what units to pick or what to put in an army, or what wargear options to take. Go look at the tactics forum here or nearly anywhere else. And it made me realize that very little discussion takes place around actual table-level tactical choices. We talk about "what" to put in an army, but rarely talk about "how" to best use a given unit.
I think that when we're talking about army lists, we are really talking about our "strategy" and how we envision a given list being used to accomplish the mission's objectives. Deep strike unit X onto objective Y, flank with unit Z, etc. These strategies are, by nature, fairly broad and idealistic. And as the saying goes no plan survives contact with the enemy!
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?
Well, you hit the nail on the head - list building is part of your strategy, and strategies are long-term and broad. I think part of the reason that strategies are discussed more than tactics online is for 2 reasons:
#1 - It's difficult to explain precise situations where certain tactics apply, and yet more difficult to explain how you may want or not want to apply that tactic even in the exact same "zoomed in" situation based on how the entire rest of the battle is going. It's just crazy broad.
#2 - A lot of tactics sounds really dumb and simple in 40k, and a lot of people on this forum will put you down for point out such simple things. Yes, the tactics themselves are easy to execute, but we face a lot of time pressure in our games, and with the number of choices available to us at any one moment, we often make decisions without thinking through each option, and so miss these chances. When I play and we have time and relax, my games go on for 4hrs. When I play under a tourney time constraint, I gotta cut corners to squeeze into 2.5hrs.
Take, for example, the simple zone-out. Properly executed, you can zone out your entire backfield with just about 3 models if they're in different units, or just 2 small units. Heck even 1 larger unit. It's hard for me to explain how to do it properly. Sure, I could just say to maximize the space between your models, but that's not always the right thing to do. You may want to hide the unit as you're doing it so it can't be disrupted. You may want to be holding an objective while you're doing it. You may want to goad your opponent into dealing with them. You may want to keep them in range of an aura. You may be able to sneak some inches out by taking into account the size of the units that would deep strike in. You may need to be more aware of the sides of your deployment zone than the back. Whatever the case, it's not as easy as "well just do this", and that makes it hard to talk about.
For this reason, I really enjoy battle reports, either video or written, where they showcase a certain tactic. It's just so hard to show them without real world situations.
... but I don't entirely agree with the sentiment that it's too difficult to discuss TLT (table-level tactics). That sounds like making excuses for not talking about it more, because talking about lists is easier / more transferrable.
Broadly speaking, I think there are some broad areas that would offer up ample opportunity for more focused tactical discussions. Essentially, look at every "decision point" on the table - that's an opportunity for tactical discussion.
* Deployment order - deploying aggressively vs. defensively, when to do one or the other. The ways in which table-level terrain might support one approach over the other. Using infiltrators to lock down sections of the board. When to place units in reserve.
* Command phase - tips, strategies, etc about using command points. Balancing of planned use of powers vs. reserving CP's for reactive uses.
* Whole army movement coordination - not getting units jammed up in tight areas, knowing when to fall back out of melee, when to run vs. advance. How best to utilize cover/terrain depending on the types of units involved in a firefight.
* Shooting phase - logic for determining target priorities, how to split/divide unit shooting attacks against multiple targets.
* Assaulting - How to best setup charges, protecting melee units on the approach/charge. Order in which to activate other unit's melee attacks. Defensive charging / denying opponent charges.
* Playing to objectives - positioning models/units to deny easy access to objectives and/or maintaining control.
* Reading your opponent's list - coming up with counter plays based on the matchup. Dealing with problematic units.
I feel like any of these topics could be fruitful for discussion. Comments above seem to assert that specific tactical situations are too complex to discuss / convey - but I think when it comes down to it there aren't really that many different situations/scenarios at a conceptual level within the topics above.
I will say, that I think 9th ed is hamstrung a bit because there a fair amount of tactical nuance in prior editions that relate to TLT were lost in the "great simplification" of the core rules in 8th/9th. Use of cover has changed, inability to flank vehicles, unit initiative and how that impacts coordinated assaults, in-ability for units to inherently split fire, trade-offs for things like going to ground or not, etc. Many of these rules created decision points of their own, which added tactical opportunities.
I would challenge you, then, to try and discuss target priority without it becoming a dissertation . If you can do it in a useful way without it becoming just an ongoing replies of "well what about this?" then I will congratulate you!
OP is right and it's also the reason why I mostly stay away from the tactics forum. Many "discussions" boil down to: Take that unit instead of the one you're planning to take. Or: "This is useless because of Space Marines" (or whatever the current Meta is).
It would be far more interesting to read about actual tactics. I mean, I'm reading my Codex, work out synergies and which stratagems to use and which units to use against what and when I finally have a game, every time in turn 1 I realize: Crap, messed up my deploiment again Or in 9th: Hmm, I probably should have taken this or that secondary instead of X.
Tactics is what you use at the table level. How you react to different situations in hopes of accomplishing certain goals. "I am going to place this unit here to try and bait that unit into moving into x position"
Strategy is your broad strokes over all plan before the game begins. Thats your list building and even your deployment.
"These units will sit in the back to protect my deployment zone and provide fire support while x,y,z will blitz into the enemy lines to stir things up".
40k basically has no tactics. It's all strategy. And that is why it's difficult to discuss and why almost all of the conversation revolves around list building.
In order to have any meaningful tactics the players have to be able to interact with each other in meaningful ways. But 99.9% of the time your strategy is your best bet with a singular clear obvious thing for you to do. And thats mostly remove enemy models as quickly as possible so they have less models to shoot back at you on the next turn. You feed them unfavorable targets if you can. You shoot your principle targets if you can. You tie up x unit if you can.
The game has no tactical depth. Thats the problem.
Lance845 wrote: 40k basically has no tactics. It's all strategy. And that is why it's difficult to discuss and why almost all of the conversation revolves around list building.
In order to have any meaningful tactics the players have to be able to interact with each other in meaningful ways. But 99.9% of the time your strategy is your best bet with a singular clear obvious thing for you to do. And thats mostly remove enemy models as quickly as possible so they have less models to shoot back at you on the next turn. You feed them unfavorable targets if you can. You shoot your principle targets if you can. You tie up x unit if you can.
The game has no tactical depth. Thats the problem.
I think this is a part of the problem for sure - although I didn't want to be the one to say it first
That said...
Yarium wrote: I would challenge you, then, to try and discuss target priority without it becoming a dissertation . If you can do it in a useful way without it becoming just an ongoing replies of "well what about this?" then I will congratulate you!
... maybe it requires more of a dissertation?
Goonhammer has some good tactics articles that are broadly applicable. They don't have one specifically on target priority, but here's on one screening with units:
These are the kinds of things I'm talking about - tactics involving how to position individual models within a unit to maximize their potential output and/or survivability, or work some other level of table-level magic to take advantage of board position, tempo, etc.
But screening is MOSTLY deployment. Which again, is strategy. You put that unit in your list TO screen. You deployed it there to screen. When your moving around the board you move them in tandem to maintain your screen. When the enemy hits it it's done it's job and you move on to phase 2 of your strategy.
It's not a tactical discussion. It's a strategic one. It's a plan you enter the table with before the game even began.
Lance845 wrote: But screening is MOSTLY deployment. Which again, is strategy. You put that unit in your list TO screen. You deployed it there to screen. When your moving around the board you move them in tandem to maintain your screen. When the enemy hits it it's done it's job and you move on to phase 2 of your strategy.
It's not a tactical discussion. It's a strategic one. It's a plan you enter the table with before the game even began.
You can have a completely fixed strategy with units that always have the same fixed role, but stating that you have to do that is pretty disingenuous. Someone who says "I put this unit into the game to screen, it always screens, I always put it in front of my units and screen them" is going to waste that unit if they're up against a long-range shooting opponent, wheras someone who puts a unit in and says "this unit can be used to achieve X and Y objective, or I can put it in front of my stuff as a screen, depending on the situation" will always get a good use case out of that unit regardless.
And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.
the_scotsman wrote: And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.
I hoped we wouldn't dive into the rabbit whole of semantics too much
Call it strategy or call it tactics, but I think when it moves from "an idea in your head about how the army will work" to the reality "now where exactly do I place this unit" there is a level of discussion to be had about better or or worse places.
If I'm trying to screen units, how far apart do I place the relevant units? Are there times when I want to break the screen? In what order should I deploy them (if alternating deployments) in order work the deployment order to my advantage. Do I place the screening unit first, in hopes that my opponent places a something to deal with the screen, but use it as a feint and then place my to-be-screened unit somewhere else? There are questions to be asked.
===========================================
On a slightly different note, I think there is an opportunity to talk about and define "battle field roles" a bit better, because it can give us a language to talk about certain types of situations without having to discuss/relay all the details. The usual FOC slots (elites, FA, etc.) don't really convey the roles very well.
For example:
- Fire Support (long range, typically slow/lightly defended)
- Cannon Fodder / screening (cheap, disposable units)
- Gunline (units at the front edge of your forces, predominately using ranged weapons)
- Assault Push (units at the front of your forces, predominately focused on melee attacks)
- Skirmishers (highly mobile units, work around cover, short range gunfire / modest assault, often infiltrate/outflank)
- Mechanized (mainline units in transports and/or deep-strike capable)
- Flankers (fast moving, provide medium range fire support, may have outflank rules)
- Rapid assault (fast moving units designed to close range into melee - often glass cannon in melee)
- Heavy assault / tarpit (slower moving, high durability in melee)
- Support / force multiplier (units that provide synergies / buffs to your other units)
- Harassment (mess with your opponents tactical options, debuffs enemy units)
- Focus: Anti-vehicle/MC (high damage hits, high strength, high AP usually)
- Focus: Anti-horde (lots of attacks, lower strength, lower AP)
- Focus: Anti-elite (medium high/strength, high AP, moderate number of attacks/damage)
Thinking through these roles at a conceptual level allow us to start to talk about tactics generally. If you opponent is bearing down on you with a front of assault push units (assault intercessors, khorne berserkers, etc.) what are the options you can deploy to bring them down? Are they the biggest threat and need to be focused fired down? Can you sacrifice one of your units to tie them up and deny a charge instead? Those kinds of questions...
The most hard to grasp tactical concept in 40K is how to decide where you want to win.
The battlefield usually divides in 3 or more areas vaguely separated from the others.
If you are winning all over the table, then this is a no-game and any discussion is useless.
Usually, one player wins in one area of the table, and the other one wins in the other 2. Deploying your forces trying to foresee where you will win and where you will put a last stand, is really important.
How to divide your units on your fronts, what to put into the second line and when to send them, when to abandon a front and focus on the remaining ones... these are the kind of choices that make you win at a game of 40K.
Lance845 wrote: But screening is MOSTLY deployment. Which again, is strategy. You put that unit in your list TO screen. You deployed it there to screen. When your moving around the board you move them in tandem to maintain your screen. When the enemy hits it it's done it's job and you move on to phase 2 of your strategy.
It's not a tactical discussion. It's a strategic one. It's a plan you enter the table with before the game even began.
You can have a completely fixed strategy with units that always have the same fixed role, but stating that you have to do that is pretty disingenuous. Someone who says "I put this unit into the game to screen, it always screens, I always put it in front of my units and screen them" is going to waste that unit if they're up against a long-range shooting opponent, wheras someone who puts a unit in and says "this unit can be used to achieve X and Y objective, or I can put it in front of my stuff as a screen, depending on the situation" will always get a good use case out of that unit regardless.
And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.
Again, Strategy is your broad over all plan. When you see that you are facing Tau and you adjust your deployment you are adjusting your strategy for the game.
Tactics is "If I move this unit out this much I might get him to deploy his deep striking commander with relatively short range guns and that will allow me to use these units to get to that commander." Baiting is a tactic. Tactics mostly don't exist for one big reason. You use your entire army all at once. So there is no finesse to "what you will do next". Since the opponent watches you do it all at once. 40k has almost no tactics.
I feel like any of these topics could be fruitful for discussion. Comments above seem to assert that specific tactical situations are too complex to discuss / convey - but I think when it comes down to it there aren't really that many different situations/scenarios at a conceptual level within the topics above.
I don't think it's that they're too complex to discuss. It's more that it's quite complex to describe the situation whereas the "solution" is often quite simple, which leads to a lot of effort for very little pay-off. I'd also say a lot of the slightly more advanced tactics are things that are mechanically simple to do once you know they exist, which leads to the tactical discussion tailing off quite quickly.
For example, tri-pointing and moving your units to both control and block the enemy access to an objective are tactics that many new players don't see at first. Once they see them in action there's not really any difficulty using them. So the discussion gets as far as "this thing is possible" and that's it.
I'd also echo a previous poster and say if you want to spark these discussions try to write about it yourself. Take one of your topics and see what you can come up with to generate the type of discussion you want.
Lance845 wrote: But screening is MOSTLY deployment. Which again, is strategy. You put that unit in your list TO screen. You deployed it there to screen. When your moving around the board you move them in tandem to maintain your screen. When the enemy hits it it's done it's job and you move on to phase 2 of your strategy.
It's not a tactical discussion. It's a strategic one. It's a plan you enter the table with before the game even began.
You can have a completely fixed strategy with units that always have the same fixed role, but stating that you have to do that is pretty disingenuous. Someone who says "I put this unit into the game to screen, it always screens, I always put it in front of my units and screen them" is going to waste that unit if they're up against a long-range shooting opponent, wheras someone who puts a unit in and says "this unit can be used to achieve X and Y objective, or I can put it in front of my stuff as a screen, depending on the situation" will always get a good use case out of that unit regardless.
And if you classify looking at your opponent's list and then deploying based on the composition of the opposing force and where he's deploying his units as "Strategy" rather than "Tactics" I think I'd kind of challenge you to find a game that DOES have tactics, then, as it seems like you've got a pretty narrow definition of the term.
Again, Strategy is your broad over all plan. When you see that you are facing Tau and you adjust your deployment you are adjusting your strategy for the game.
Tactics is "If I move this unit out this much I might get him to deploy his deep striking commander with relatively short range guns and that will allow me to use these units to get to that commander." Baiting is a tactic. Tactics mostly don't exist for one big reason. You use your entire army all at once. So there is no finesse to "what you will do next". Since the opponent watches you do it all at once. 40k has almost no tactics.
If that is the definition of 'tactics' you're going off of, then yeah I'd agree that 40k has relatively little of that in part due to the turn structure but also just how relatively small the maneuvering space available is versus the size of the armies. I've played game systems that are ostensibly "IGOUGO" with fairly limited interactivity from the opposing player (at least, about as much as there is in, say, Age of Sigmar, where just the change that makes chargers not always have priority and most units being melee based means the opposing player acts during the active player's turn much more commonly) that had a lot more of this kind of on-the-ground decision making than 40k does.
Most commonly this gets added in by the addition of reaction moves, like the ability to defer a unit's action until the opposing player's turn or Infinity's AROs, or the addition of action economy where you have to select which of your units you're going to activate.
a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim. "time to develop a coherent economic strategy"
In order to have tactics there needs to be more player to player interaction. I need to be able to make moves that impact YOUR decisions and you need to be able to make moves that impact mine. I can't bait you if I am unable to respond to your actions. There is no difference between a quick infantry action and a armored support action if all the actions go in a single wave to a single aim.
Again, to the basic topic of the thread, tactical discussions about 40k end up talking about list building because the utter lack of tactical decision making means you have no tools except strategy. And strategy starts in your list building and deployment.
The Spartans strategy of holding a pass where they could limit the number of Persians they would have to fight at any given time was very effective at allowing the tactic of the Phalanx formation to keep the soldiers doing the fighting alive.
The strategy forced the enemy to face them on their terms. The tactics is how they kept winning the fights.
I appreciate the discussion of tactics vs. strategy semantics.... but can we just agree to not go there? It risks derailing the whole thread. There is a line somewhere between the two but I care more about talking about the specific element or decision point that occurs "on the table" regardless of whether we want to call it tactics or strategy.
Deployment is 100% critical, and it's certainly one of the higher level decisions with a bit of nuance to it. Let's talk about those nuances if we can
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
The answer is you need to have "table-level tactics" in the game in order to have a discussion about them. If the game doesn't actually have any then all you can talk about is strategy. And any attempt at discussion on tactics will degrade into a discussion on strategy because there isn't any other content to discuss. Essentially you could say they are "relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about" because they are so straight forward that they amount to basic arithmetic. Shoot the anti tank guns at the tank. Shoot the high rate of fire guns with no AP at the large model count unit with a bad save. Eliminate as many models as possible so the enemy has less tools to use against you. If thats the depth of the tactics you are capable of deploying then what else is there to say?
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
The answer is you need to have "table-level tactics" in the game in order to have a discussion about them. If the game doesn't actually have any then all you can talk about is strategy. And any attempt at discussion on tactics will degrade into a discussion on strategy because there isn't any other content to discuss. Essentially you could say they are "relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about" because they are so straight forward that they amount to basic arithmetic. Shoot the anti tank guns at the tank. Shoot the high rate of fire guns with no AP at the large model count unit with a bad save. Eliminate as many models as possible so the enemy has less tools to use against you. If thats the depth of the tactics you are capable of deploying then what else is there to say?
I have this argument a lot. I don't know why there is so much resistance to the idea. The only real tactic is target priority in this game. The strategy pretty much breaks down to what order you shoot things in and moving units so they will be able to use the optimal order. There is some thought that goes into it but I would hardly call it "tactics" and I am good at it - better than most but it is because I understand this game is about removing models. That is what this game has always been about.
Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.
For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:
I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?
Here's the situation:
It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.
I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:
#1 - To the west of the central objective.
#2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control.
#3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad.
#4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche).
#5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.
This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.
For the post above - I think its questions exactly like this which are tactics - but without setting up little Chessboard style maps of which unit is where, its hard to really do. So people don't, and discussion turn into "its all list building, there is no tactics", as if your lists just play themselves against each and every opponent.
For the above - I'd probably say #3 because it denies/sets you up if your opponent doesn't send stuff in that direction. But I'd be hoping to crack the impulsor with shooting to then charge the marines, which may not be plausible.
Committing more to the centre might be a good idea if you have the units around for a solid counter-punch. I mean you say the Magus and Patriarch to the south, how far are we talking? Would you expect the Patriarch be able to charge in? There are issues of interrupts to consider (broken stratagem imo, but I guess it makes assault vs assault a bit more complex than "I charge, I win unless I roll terribly").
Yarium wrote: Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.
For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:
I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?
Here's the situation:
It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.
I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:
#1 - To the west of the central objective.
#2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control.
#3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad.
#4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche).
#5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.
This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.
The correct answer here is... HARD!
What other forces do you have? What is the current game score? Can you afford a CP reroll to fish for a good charge? Does dropping into any of these positions prevent you from moving with another unit?
The question is only hard because we lack context. With context, there will only ever be one correct move and it's usually pretty obvious.
Tyel wrote: For the post above - I think its questions exactly like this which are tactics - but without setting up little Chessboard style maps of which unit is where, its hard to really do. So people don't, and discussion turn into "its all list building, there is no tactics", as if your lists just play themselves against each and every opponent.
For the above - I'd probably say #3 because it denies/sets you up if your opponent doesn't send stuff in that direction. But I'd be hoping to crack the impulsor with shooting to then charge the marines, which may not be plausible.
Committing more to the centre might be a good idea if you have the units around for a solid counter-punch. I mean you say the Magus and Patriarch to the south, how far are we talking? Would you expect the Patriarch be able to charge in? There are issues of interrupts to consider (broken stratagem imo, but I guess it makes assault vs assault a bit more complex than "I charge, I win unless I roll terribly").
Thanks Tyel! Yeah, I tried my best to describe the situation as best I could, but it's exactly these kinds of things that I consider to be "tactics" as well, and they are just SO complicated because the entire board state can matter, and it's REALLY hard to describe accurately. I had moved up my Patriarch to be about 3" south of the central objective, and my Magus was just a couple inches behind him. The Patriarch was here to charge and kill the Libby dread, which I had planned to put 2 smites into using the familiars of both my psychic HQ's to get an extra cast off each. The Libby Dread was already down to 5 wounds due to a truck exploding the previous turn. If it died from Smites and ancilliary shooting, the Patriarch would be able to charge the Phobos marines.
I ended up going with #1, and got lucky with my Perfect Ambush for a 5" move. This let me threaten both the ongoing conflict to the north and threaten the Libby dread. Then I got extra lucky with a super-smite off the Magus that dealt 6 mortal wounds to the Libby Dread. I ended up charging and killing both squads of Death Company and the Bullet Inceptors with the Acolytes. I chose this location because I wanted to hold the middle for both Domination and Priority Targets secondaries, and was hoping to consolidate into a position where I could keep my opponent's bikes and characters locked into their deployment zone (the path of their back line between their deployment zone quarter and the adjacent quarter was somewhat blocked by terrain). I figured if I went for #3, I would likely kill the transport, but then I wouldn't be able to charge and kill the guys inside (the transport would likely survive my shooting phase), and if I tagged a unit of 5 Intercessors, they'd easily punch an unsupported 20-man squad to death. Keeping close enough to the Patriarch and Magus (who both got off all their boosting powers onto the 20-man unit; Psychic Stimulus, Might From Beyond, Undying Vigor) made the unit really punch above their weight class, which just wouldn't have been possible if I went for #3.
Yarium wrote: Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.
For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:
I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?
Here's the situation:
It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.
I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:
#1 - To the west of the central objective.
#2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control.
#3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad.
#4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche).
#5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.
This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.
The correct answer here is... HARD!
I mean the same amount of thought goes into dropping 20 warriors. You consider all the options but really it comes down to is. Where are they going to remove the most points from the table or - can they kill something important AND take control of an objective or perhaps they also need to function as your primary front line. It is pretty much 3 choices.
1. Remove the most points
2. Remove some points and cap objective
3. Prevent opponents from removing points from your army.
The answer is almost always trying to do all these things at once. It is very simple to me.
There are no tactics in 40k because I, some person you dont know on the internet who claims to not play the game, have declared myself a galaxy brain genius who always knows the correct answer to every situation instantly.
I had a 2 units of Hand Flamer Acolytes with similar mining weapons (1 was 6x Rock Saws, 1 was 6x Rock Cutters) in reserve, and a Primus in reserve. The north-west corner objective was covered by a Rock Truck with 10 Neophyte Hybrids inside with 2 Mining Lasers and 3 Ridgerunners with Heavy Mining Lasers and Flare Launchers. Close to my board edge (south-centre) were another 3 Ridgerunners with Heavy Mining Lasers and Flare Launchers. Finally, a unit of 10 Neophyte Hybrids with 2 Mining Lasers were in my deployment zone holding my objective and keeping the back field zoned out.
I had Domination, Deploy Scramblers (my Neophytes in my back field had done 1 scrambler turn 1) and Direct Assault.
My opponent had Relentless Assault, Oaths of Moment, and Direct Assault.
I went first, and the score at that point was 16 to 5.
Yarium wrote: Well, then I, and I believe the OP, would disagree with you. There is very frequently a challenge in figuring out what is or isn't optimal.
For example, I just had this situation happen yesterday:
I am deep striking a unit of 20 Acolytes with Hand Flamers and mining weapons. Where do I deep strike them?
Here's the situation:
It is turn 2 and my opponent's Blood Angels miraculously failed to kill a unit of Aberrants, who are now tied up in combat with a unit of Death Company to the north of the central objective. Around them nearby are a 3-strong Primaris Bike unit, a 3-strong Plasma Inceptor unit, a 3-strong Bullet Inceptor unit, a Sang Guard Ancient-dude, and a Libby Dreadnaught. The Libby Dread and the 3-strong Bullet Inceptors are on the central objective, and the Bike unit is blocked by the ongoing combat.
I identify the following possible areas of deep striking:
#1 - To the west of the central objective. #2 - To the west of the ongoing combat near by an objective in no-man's land that I already control. #3 - To the east of the opposite no-man's land objective in the opposite board corner that is currently held by an Impulsor with 5 Intercessors in it, and which would be south of a unit of 5-man Hellblaster squad on top of some cargo containers, and south-east of a 5-man Phobos Marine squad. #4 - To the south of the central objective close to where I've moved my Patriarch and Magus. The Magus has +2 to cast Might From Beyond and Psychic Stimulus (Crouchling + Cult Psyche). #5 - In the very back of my opponent's lines near a Forgeworld Relic Sicaran and Tech Marine.
This is further complicated by the fact that I don't know how far I will roll for my Perfect Ambush, which allows me to move up to d6" after being set up from ambush.
The correct answer here is... HARD!
Having a difficult math problem doesn't make it anything but a math problem. It's still arithmetic. 1217-36+102*6/4=
Even if you were to some how stumble into a situation that boarders on algebra it's still just a calculation. You are not playing against the other player. You are playing against your own ability to make a computation and come out right. There is no tactics there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchild 1984 wrote: I play as though my opponent is a genius. - No "distraction" units - put him at Nash equilibrium (no good options)
Thats actually how I play nids. Overwhelming number of threats with redundant options. You kill a unit, I have 2 more that do the same job. You focus on that threat you let 2 others through. It's a rock solid strategy.
I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.
That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.
the_scotsman wrote: There are no tactics in 40k because I, some person you dont know on the internet who claims to not play the game, have declared myself a galaxy brain genius who always knows the correct answer to every situation instantly.
I mean. You should really play the game to have an opinion about it. EXPofc is the most important factor in everything. I just assume that most people on dakka are 20+ year veterans of the game like I am. Like...seriously - in all that time you never figured out that the game is about killing things as fast as you can?
And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;
a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
Yarium wrote: I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.
That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.
First, when 2 people play chess they ARE playing against each other. How you move pieces can and does effect how the opponent responds. You can sacrifice pieces for advantages, bait the opponent into making an opening, and all the other things that are in fact tactics.
But outside of that, computers beat chess masters all the time these days. Because they make computations based on probability.
But in 40k I don't need to know what you are going to do. I just need to know what I can do now to put you in the worst possible position on your turn. Thats it. It doesn't matter WHAT you do as long as I make sure you have the least possible resources to do it with.
Yarium wrote: I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.
Chess and even Go will eventually be perfectly solved. We've long since passed the point where any human can beat a Chess AI and Go is well on the way to this level of AI performance as well.
That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.
Your brain runs on physics and makes choices based on outside stimulus which is also driven by physics; by which mechanism are you able to make a choice? The reality is that everything is predetermined including our evey action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I mean. You should really play the game to have an opinion about it. EXPofc is the most important factor in everything. I just assume that most people on dakka are 20+ year veterans of the game like I am. Like...seriously - in all that time you never figured out that the game is about killing things as fast as you can?
People disparage me for not playing 9th edition due to the pandemic but ignore that I played from 3e to 6e, skipped 7e, and then played some games late in 8e. The game has changed in detail but the core of the game is still to bring the hardest list you can, try to put the right units attacks into their optimal targets, and build around the mission such that you can win even with below-average dice.
Canadian 5th wrote: The game has changed in detail but the core of the game is still to bring the hardest list you can, try to put the right units attacks into their optimal targets, and build around the mission such that you can win even with below-average dice.
You know, you read the forums here and it makes you think its only about the list. You start playing and learn there's more to it, and thats... thats part of life. But, you only learn that when you start losing.
You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small. I mean, one bad charge or advance roll, and you don't quite make it. One inch too short in the shooting phase, and you can't quite Rapid Fire. The inches we need are everywhere around us! In every phase of the game, every advance , every charge, every deployment.
In this game, we fight for that inch. In this game, we tear ourselves, and everyone else around us, to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch! Because we know, when we add up all those inches, thats going to make the fething difference between winning, and losing! Between living, and dying!
I'll tell you this: In any fight, its the guy who is willing to die, who is going to win that inch. And I know, if I'm going to have any life anymore, its because I'm still willing to fight, and die for that inch. Because, thats what living is! The six inches in front of your face! Now, I can't make you do it! You have to look at your opponent across from you, look into his eyes! Now I think you're going to see a guy who will go that inch with you. That's 40k guys, thats all it is.
......................
For deployment I usually have some idea of what I want to do and then adjust after reserves are declared. And in general, the more elite the army I'm using, the more likely I'll try to hide in deployment and then counterpunch.
There ought to be some kind of standard "whiteboard" to draw things up and discuss strategy and tactics. While amounts of terrain do vary, ruins are common enough to be worth discussing at a basic level for sure. More advanced tactics seem like they'd be better put in the tactics forum even though it seems to have mutated into more of a list building exercise.
Yarium wrote: And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;
a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
C) the internet has always been populated by large numbers of individuals who base a large amount of their self-worth on proclaiming themselves to be genius level experts on a given topic but also coincidentally too far beyond the pleb-tier concerns associated with participating in that subject to ever be bothered to produce any kind of proof that theyre as good at it as they claim to be.
Yarium wrote: And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;
a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
C) the internet has always been populated by large numbers of individuals who base a large amount of their self-worth on proclaiming themselves to be genius level experts on a given topic but also coincidentally too far beyond the pleb-tier concerns associated with participating in that subject to ever be bothered to produce any kind of proof that theyre as good at it as they claim to be.
Nobody here has proclaimed themselves to be a genius. On the contrary, we have said this gak is incredibly simplistic.
How about instead of flinging around ad hominem arguments you try to defend your position by providing any evidence at all that the game is anything more then we present it to be?
Yarium wrote: I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.
That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.
If a computer can be taught to do something its not tactics. It is just brut force combo crunching.
Yarium wrote: I can't say I agree at all here. By that kind of thinking, not only does no game have tactics (even Chess is potentially solvable, which only hasn't been because of our own ability to make computations and coming out right), but indeed the only reason that human existence is troubling is because we don't have perfect omniscience.
That's like saying "the future can be entirely predetermined due to the laws of physics, so there is no such thing as choice". While maybe (only maybe!) technically true, in reality you don't and can't have access to perfect information, and so have to make choices based on your limited understanding. Ergo, unless you have perfect information in 40k and perfect understanding, you also can only make guesses in a timely fashion as to what course of action is best.
If a computer can be taught to do something its not tactics. It is just brut force combo crunching.
That is not true.
By moving x piece into y position it understands what options it is giving you. YOU choose which option you take and it responds.
When I move a unit into a certain position I understand what options it gives you too. And if 40k wasn't a shallow mess that might make moving that unit there a tool I can use to get you to react in ways that favor me. It's not. So the only reason for me to move the unit into that position is because it lets me put it's offense to maximum effect while minimizing your own in your inevitable retaliation.
Slowroll wrote: You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small.
I think this is an important point as well. Those us who have been playing a long time take for granted that we're measuring things down to fractions of an inch. A lot of the game is hedging your bets, both in terms of die rolls and probabilities, but also in terms of measurement.
Consider a generic scenario where you have a strong melee unit positioned such that you can charge one of two enemy units and prevent that enemy unit from charging your own line or returning fire. There are a bunch of factors that go into making this choice:
(1) Which target am I more likely to get into charge range with? If the juicier target is further away, is it worth the risk of a longer charge?
(2) Which target is the bigger threat to me? And does which one I charge have a bearing on my success in assault? What are my risks?
(3) If I charge one unit, what other units are my other nearby forces able to target? Do I concentrate fire locally to have a chance to wipe out the enemy unit I charge, or do I charge one and shoot at the other enemy ui to soften them up so their retaliation is less?
We could keep going. Certainly, there is a layer of math hammer that can tell you the likely outcomes of certain scenarios, but there is still always the element of risk. What happens if you take the risky option? What are the consequences of playing it safe?
Developing skill in strategy/tactics game is very often a matter of heuristics - it's about developing rules of thumb that help us short-cut to possible solutions for very complex problems. We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?
Mezmorki wrote: We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?
Then measure value. If I can do enough damage to a "imperial knight" that it brings down it's stats enough to reduce it's impact on that field is the math hammer impact of that equivalent to the average number of guns I could remove otherwise by instead shooting at other targets? Pick the one most likely to cause the most damage to my enemies ability to do damage and then do that. 1 shot from a lascanon can kill 1 grot or take a potential chunk out of a knight. It's super easy to decide where that lascanon goes. Where can the bolters do the most damage? Shoot at that.
No matter how often people say it's very complex it really isn't. Hey, that unit you have is good in a fight or at least good for tying up my guns with a charge. Their move is 6". So I need to end my turn 14+ inches away to make sure they have a bad chance at succeeding in a charge. What targets can I shoot at while being at that 14+" range? Shoot them. If I can still shoot them at 17" then be 17" away and shoot. And when you fail your charge I can turn my guns on you and then charge myself with a much better chance at success.
Yarium wrote: And saying "well the right answer is obvious" means either;
a) the right answer actually is obvious, but I'm a dummy, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
b) the right answer actually isn't obvious, in which case I need to develop a better understanding of tactics to help me make the best choice.
C) the internet has always been populated by large numbers of individuals who base a large amount of their self-worth on proclaiming themselves to be genius level experts on a given topic but also coincidentally too far beyond the pleb-tier concerns associated with participating in that subject to ever be bothered to produce any kind of proof that theyre as good at it as they claim to be.
Even if we aren't geniuses do you dispute that there is a best play to make for any given play that can be made and that such plays can be solved with mathematics and some amount of computational power? This is all it takes to prove our point, not the assertion that we ourselves will always make the correct play.
Slowroll wrote: You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small.
I think this is an important point as well. Those us who have been playing a long time take for granted that we're measuring things down to fractions of an inch. A lot of the game is hedging your bets, both in terms of die rolls and probabilities, but also in terms of measurement.
Consider a generic scenario where you have a strong melee unit positioned such that you can charge one of two enemy units and prevent that enemy unit from charging your own line or returning fire. There are a bunch of factors that go into making this choice:
(1) Which target am I more likely to get into charge range with? If the juicier target is further away, is it worth the risk of a longer charge?
(2) Which target is the bigger threat to me? And does which one I charge have a bearing on my success in assault? What are my risks?
(3) If I charge one unit, what other units are my other nearby forces able to target? Do I concentrate fire locally to have a chance to wipe out the enemy unit I charge, or do I charge one and shoot at the other enemy ui to soften them up so their retaliation is less?
We could keep going. Certainly, there is a layer of math hammer that can tell you the likely outcomes of certain scenarios, but there is still always the element of risk. What happens if you take the risky option? What are the consequences of playing it safe?
Developing skill in strategy/tactics game is very often a matter of heuristics - it's about developing rules of thumb that help us short-cut to possible solutions for very complex problems. We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?
These 'tactics' can be boiled down to a flowchart and a table to expected values. You can always, if you're quick/skilled enough or have a program/precalculated table, answer any questions such as what is the expected value for any given charge [in this case the expected value of the models removed multiplied by the chance to make the charge]. It will be a very rare case, and often one which only comes up when you're badly behind, where you must make the risky plays because they are your only way back into the game but you can mitigate this by using the above flowcharts and tables of values and thus should only be here due to hot/cold dice showing up for critical actions by you and your opponent.
Slowroll wrote: You find out, life is this game of inches. So is 40k. Because in either game, life or 40k, the margin for error is so small.
I think this is an important point as well. Those us who have been playing a long time take for granted that we're measuring things down to fractions of an inch. A lot of the game is hedging your bets, both in terms of die rolls and probabilities, but also in terms of measurement.
Consider a generic scenario where you have a strong melee unit positioned such that you can charge one of two enemy units and prevent that enemy unit from charging your own line or returning fire. There are a bunch of factors that go into making this choice:
(1) Which target am I more likely to get into charge range with? If the juicier target is further away, is it worth the risk of a longer charge?
(2) Which target is the bigger threat to me? And does which one I charge have a bearing on my success in assault? What are my risks?
(3) If I charge one unit, what other units are my other nearby forces able to target? Do I concentrate fire locally to have a chance to wipe out the enemy unit I charge, or do I charge one and shoot at the other enemy ui to soften them up so their retaliation is less?
We could keep going. Certainly, there is a layer of math hammer that can tell you the likely outcomes of certain scenarios, but there is still always the element of risk. What happens if you take the risky option? What are the consequences of playing it safe?
Developing skill in strategy/tactics game is very often a matter of heuristics - it's about developing rules of thumb that help us short-cut to possible solutions for very complex problems. We might have heuristics that say "kill the biggest threat first" ... but the battlefield is usually more complex than that. What if you don't have enough firepower in range to kill the biggest thing first - and your forced to split fire. What then?
So, ignoring those people that say Tactics don't exist, I think they do and I'd love to see a series of posts by you talking about some of these different topics. I think there is a lot to discuss and would enjoy doing so. We can just ignore the inevitable "tactics don't exist" folks by assuming that they don't exist as well
Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec. The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents. The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water. As long as this playstyle exists, there is an open question about how much you should invest in it versus something like the traditional attrition style.
No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.
LiMunPai wrote: There are some wild assertions in this thread.
Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec. The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents. The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water. As long as this playstyle exists, there is an open question about how much you should invest in it versus something like the traditional attrition style.
Agreed. The way 40k scores missions in 9th opens the door for new strategies. You can absolutely list build and deploy for something like this and win games by acting on this strategy. This strategy is not tactics.
No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.
I disagree. The way targeting works makes it so if I can see and shoot you you can see and shoot me. But worse, each MODEL has to be able to see you in order to shoot but you only need to be able to see one of mine to shoot the entire unit. Due to that, trying to hide behind walls or whatever is actually a huge disadvantage. If you are talking about obscuring in that it provides you a -1 to hit, then it's a no brainer. Il take the -1 to hit for my guys every time thank you very much. You cannot bait the enemy if you cannot react to them. Players have to be able to react in order for tactics to exist. The IGOUGO turn structure that 40k has makes it basically impossible.
Apocalypse has very good terrain rules IMO and a much better tool set for tactical decision making. Not just what orders you are giving to your various detachments but what order you activate those detachments in and to what effect you employ those orders.
LiMunPai wrote: Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec.
Please, show me a list designed to win this way and then a game where this actually happens. Yes, the game is more objective-focused than ever, but many of the best secondary objectives involve killing things so you're handicapping yourself if you don't have a plan to remove enemy models and reduce the amount of incoming firepower.
The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents.
Does it now? How does it beat tournament level Harlequins, Daemons, DG, and SoB? How does it stop them from pushing in and achieving their goals if all it wants to do is camp objective markers? Also, this kind of gameplan is a strategy and not a tactic.
The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water.
The keyword here is some. This is a skew list that will go 3 - 2 but that can't win tournaments unless it gets extremely lucky and faces exactly the right match-ups. Also another strategy. The tactic would be knowing when you use that order and when to do something else.
Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack.
Unless the enemy army can do stuff like move 30"+ and still shoot and assault afterward. Like WS, RW, and Harlequins can all do. Or deep strike like DG, Daemons, DW can all do. You can't hide on a board that can be traversed in a single turn so your 'tactic' does nothing unless you combine it with large screens and at that point you're investing so much that pursuing this 'tactic' requires you to build your strategy around it.
Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn.
Bait only works if your opponent is bad. Do you think you'll be baiting anybody who just went 4-0 and is looking for a shot at taking the tournament?
LiMunPai wrote: There are some wild assertions in this thread.
Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec. The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents. The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water. As long as this playstyle exists, there is an open question about how much you should invest in it versus something like the traditional attrition style.
Agreed. The way 40k scores missions in 9th opens the door for new strategies. You can absolutely list build and deploy for something like this and win games by acting on this strategy. This strategy is not tactics.
No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.
I disagree. The way targeting works makes it so if I can see and shoot you you can see and shoot me. But worse, each MODEL has to be able to see you in order to shoot but you only need to be able to see one of mine to shoot the entire unit. Due to that, trying to hide behind walls or whatever is actually a huge disadvantage. If you are talking about obscuring in that it provides you a -1 to hit, then it's a no brainer. Il take the -1 to hit for my guys every time thank you very much. You cannot bait the enemy if you cannot react to them. Players have to be able to react in order for tactics to exist. The IGOUGO turn structure that 40k has makes it basically impossible.
You can kill the unit you are shooting at for no reply from that unit. I was mostly talking about mutually supporting units being prevented from replying. Obscuring terrain of 5 inch height completely blocks LOS, so you can certainly use it to not be shot. A unit like the Silent King does this all the time with his 2 Menhirs and good movement by getting just enough LOS to touch the furthest corner of a tank, shooting it to death with the 2 Menhirs, them being in a position to not get shot back by other units due to the aforementioned obscuring terrain. I have done this and seen this done on multiple occasions, so it's certainly possible.
It's mostly army list and has been for most of the game's existence. We'd have people arguing "It's all about how you use the list!!!1!" even if we got a new Imperial Knight codex and suddenly all Knights were just 100 points, and no other army was as good.
I think if 40k could be crunched into oblivion by super computers you would approach certain solutions - or atleast, "this sequence of choices should optimise your chances of winning" - but I'm not sure that's what the majority of players do.
Say my opponent has one unit on an objective which will earn him points/deny me points - but also a unit that's going to do a load of damage if I ignore it. Which is the bigger concern? I'm sure there *is* a statistically best thing to do - but most people get a feeling based on playing out lots of games, not by crunching the maths through thousands or millions of scenarios and then hoping the dice come up average. They don't have some sort of augmented vision where they mentally select a unit and then the expected distribution of outcomes pops up based on what they target.
I think Chess and computers is a good example. Okay computers are better than humans - but does that effect games between me and you? If I employ a particular set of opening moves, is that not a tactic? Just saying "its a solved game, get good noob" doesn't actually help anyone get good.
Tyel wrote: If I employ a particular set of opening moves, is that not a tactic?
It's a strategy actually. You use certain opening moves in Chess to try to force the midgame into a state where you can find advantages. If you make opening moves without a plan for the mid-game you're just bad.
Tyel wrote: Just saying "its a solved game, get good noob" doesn't actually help anyone get good.
I have not seen anyone say you should "get good" or that having this discussion is being done in such a way as to make you get better.
It's a discussion about the nature of the game we are playing. Which does, in fact, help people to be better at playing it if for no other reason then you have a better understanding of the elements in play.
Pretending the game has more depth then it does wont help you. In fact it will hurt you. You will look at the equation like it's an over whleming complex thing that cannot possibly be solved. It can be solved. The individual components of the equation are very simple. Good players do recognize the elements in the formula and gamble on the law of averages and act in accordance.
Remember when people were like... "Why would I take las canons over High Rate of Fire weapons to kill tanks? The HROF guns peel off wounds more reliably!"
Well... they did the math and it turns out the answer was really simple and won games.
No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.
One of the reasons 40k is tactically shallow is because the players have almost all the information they need at all times. That means you can't bait a competent opponent because there's no hidden information for them to have to make a judgement call about. If an opponent moves to shoot one of your units and fails to notice this puts them in a bad position they're just a bad opponent because that information is available to them when they move. Games with more tactical depth achieve this in many cases by not giving players perfect information (often by using alternating activation) which then requires them to make judgement calls for which the correct answer is not always possible to determine.
No Tactics in 40K is also silly. Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack. Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn. Do you think this is too easy to be called a tactic? Do you think this tactic is not viable on the tabletop? I'm confident I can defend against either of those challenges.
One of the reasons 40k is tactically shallow is because the players have almost all the information they need at all times. That means you can't bait a competent opponent because there's no hidden information for them to have to make a judgement call about. If an opponent moves to shoot one of your units and fails to notice this puts them in a bad position they're just a bad opponent because that information is available to them when they move. Games with more tactical depth achieve this in many cases by not giving players perfect information (often by using alternating activation) which then requires them to make judgement calls for which the correct answer is not always possible to determine.
If you do threaten this tactic with something like Inceptors or Lokhust Destroyers that can deepstrike in or very high mobility units, you can often cut off avenues of movement for your opponent if they don't want to subject themselves to this. Sometimes, that restricted movement is enough of a problem that they would be better off accepting the losses from the unrepliable shooting, but it's going to be a risk/reward based judgement call.
If you CAN do that and have the advantage or not do that and have a disadvantage which one do you do? Does 2+2=4?
It depends on how much setup you need to do to pull off the tactic. Sometimes you'll have to forgo output by keeping your shooting unit in a response position early on in order to threaten pulling this off later. That decision would have to be made at the table where the risk/reward and geometry can be evaluated.
No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
LiMunPai wrote: If you do threaten this tactic with something like Inceptors or Lokhust Destroyers that can deepstrike in or very high mobility units, you can often cut off avenues of movement for your opponent if they don't want to subject themselves to this. Sometimes, that restricted movement is enough of a problem that they would be better off accepting the losses from the unrepliable shooting, but it's going to be a risk/reward based judgement call.
This 'judgement call' will often boil down to simple math. The formula would be something like the expected value of letting unit A sit there unopposed for another turn compared to the extra value you expect to give up by putting yourself into the position to kill unit A but giving Units B and C a more optimal target than the one they would otherwise have. You do this pretty easily with some basic calculations. It does get a little messier if one of those units is scoring, but you can also do that math.
LiMunPai wrote: Removing enemy models is no longer the point of 9th edition 40K. A game can be won with exactly 0 enemy models killed assuming you have aggressive enough movement options and enough obsec.
Please, show me a list designed to win this way and then a game where this actually happens. Yes, the game is more objective-focused than ever, but many of the best secondary objectives involve killing things so you're handicapping yourself if you don't have a plan to remove enemy models and reduce the amount of incoming firepower.
The Canoptek Necrons list with Obsec is weighted more towards a playstyle like this than towards attrition, and it wins quite a lot of games versus very competent opponents.
Does it now? How does it beat tournament level Harlequins, Daemons, DG, and SoB? How does it stop them from pushing in and achieving their goals if all it wants to do is camp objective markers? Also, this kind of gameplan is a strategy and not a tactic.
The hordes of guardsmen with Move! Move! Move! is even more weighted towards this playstyle, and it will blow some competitive lists out of the water.
The keyword here is some. This is a skew list that will go 3 - 2 but that can't win tournaments unless it gets extremely lucky and faces exactly the right match-ups. Also another strategy. The tactic would be knowing when you use that order and when to do something else.
Models can utilize obscuring terrain to get shots on enemy models without getting replied against by other models due to the angle of the attack.
Unless the enemy army can do stuff like move 30"+ and still shoot and assault afterward. Like WS, RW, and Harlequins can all do. Or deep strike like DG, Daemons, DW can all do. You can't hide on a board that can be traversed in a single turn so your 'tactic' does nothing unless you combine it with large screens and at that point you're investing so much that pursuing this 'tactic' requires you to build your strategy around it.
Because of this, a unit can be placed to bait the enemy into moving into a position that makes this strategy viable in a subsequent turn.
Bait only works if your opponent is bad. Do you think you'll be baiting anybody who just went 4-0 and is looking for a shot at taking the tournament?
I think many of the arguments you make are mitigating, but they don't defeat my argument. I don't think I'm going to deal with them individually, and it will just be up to the thread to use their head to decide if they are relevant or not. I think most of them aren't particularly relevant since I'm arguing for strategies that will work sometimes rather than trying to present a single source solution to the game.
The bait argument you make is just a misunderstanding. I'm using bait as a synonym for incentivize here. It could very well be a good idea for the opponent to move into the corner shooting for scenario tempo reasons.
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
LiMunPai wrote: If you do threaten this tactic with something like Inceptors or Lokhust Destroyers that can deepstrike in or very high mobility units, you can often cut off avenues of movement for your opponent if they don't want to subject themselves to this. Sometimes, that restricted movement is enough of a problem that they would be better off accepting the losses from the unrepliable shooting, but it's going to be a risk/reward based judgement call.
This 'judgement call' will often boil down to simple math. The formula would be something like the expected value of letting unit A sit there unopposed for another turn compared to the extra value you expect to give up by putting yourself into the position to kill unit A but giving Units B and C a more optimal target than the one they would otherwise have. You do this pretty easily with some basic calculations. It does get a little messier if one of those units is scoring, but you can also do that math.
I think this is a bit dismissive of statistical analysis. Something may be a good idea under statistical averages, but a spike could lose you the game. Risk/Reward statistical analysis isn't a straightforward math problem.
Now, it's possible a machine learning tool could solve for something like this. I think this is proof that machines can enact strategies rather than proof that strategy isn't present because a computer can do it.
LiMunPai wrote: I think many of the arguments you make are mitigating, but they don't defeat my argument.
If most of your arguments can be mitigated by somebody who hasn't played in over a year due to COVID your arguments might not be as strong as you assume them to be.
The bait argument you make is just a misunderstanding. I'm using bait as a synonym for incentivize here. It could very well be a good idea for the opponent to move into the corner shooting for scenario tempo reasons.
A good player will either capitalize on your positioning by taking the attack offered or by realizing that you're sitting back and not pressing to claim space on the board and winning that way. Any 'tactic' that has you slinking around cover and setting up fire lanes is likely way too defensive for 9e tournament level play.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
This also means you've invested points into an army that will likely end up winning games in the loser bracket as you simply have too many bad match-ups to win a tournament. Your tactics can at best somewhat mitigate your poor list but are statistically unlikely to allow you to beat a player who just brought a better army.
LiMunPai wrote: I think this is a bit dismissive of statistical analysis. Something may be a good idea under statistical averages, but a spike could lose you the game.
A spike can always lose you the game in 40k. You have to plan around likely outcomes while trying to keep a reserve that can deal with spikes while also understanding that there are going to be games that you 'should have won' that you lose due to the dice. This is just 40k in general and applies to literally every play you can make that involves dice.
Now, it's possible a machine learning tool could solve for something like this. I think this is proof that machines can enact strategies rather than proof that strategy isn't present because a computer can do it.
You're confused. Nobody has argued that strategy in 40k doesn't exist. The argument is that the game is too shallow for tactics to exist. Try reading the thread before making such claims.
If I'm playing a game with alternating activations, and I include cheap, gakky units to burn activations for so I can try to bait my opponent's units out of position and force him to activate more important units before I do, how is that "tactics" rather than "Strategy"?
I know the answer to this, because the answer is obviously "thing I like is Tactics, thing I don't like is Strategy" but I'm really not seeing a whole lot of a distinction here.
Also, it's good to know 8th-9th are the most tactical editions of 40k yet, because AFAIK it's the one that allows you the ability to make decisions, ever, at all, during your opponent's turn and react to them.
Heroic Intervention, Activation during the fight phase and defensive stratagems ain't much, but they're a whole hell of a lot more than the...basically no decisions you got to make in your opponent's turn 5th thru 7th.
Mezmorki wrote: So if there are no tactics, what happens should two players face each other using the same list?
It very likely comes to whoever gets the first turn winning with the state of 9e thus far. Are you going to argue that being better at rolling a six-sided die is a tactic now?
Mezmorki wrote: So if there are no tactics, what happens should two players face each other using the same list?
Generally speaking, the player who goes first wins.
If 2 equal armies arrive and they are each, at 2k points, capable of removing 400 points from the enemies army a turn then the first turn advantage will create an ever widening gap between the 2 armies.
the_scotsman wrote: If I'm playing a game with alternating activations, and I include cheap, gakky units to burn activations for so I can try to bait my opponent's units out of position and force him to activate more important units before I do, how is that "tactics" rather than "Strategy"?
It isn't but choosing when to use them for maximum effect in-game is a tactic, one that your foe can counter by activating their own units and trying to pin units you've yet to activate. Deploying chaff and moving them with the rest of your army during your monolithic turn in 40k isn't a tactic because there is zero elements of risk to your plan.
Heroic Intervention, Activation during the fight phase and defensive stratagems ain't much, but they're a whole hell of a lot more than the...basically no decisions you got to make in your opponent's turn 5th thru 7th.
These acts are also no-brainer levels of obvious too. If your unit wins or forces a draw on an objective you heroically intervene every time if it doesn't check to see if you get any bonuses that activate when you charge or intervene and if you really can't sway the battle stay put. Goonhammer has run the math for some of the defensive strats so if yours has been mathed out you can just check a chart to see if a defensive strat is worth popping.
the_scotsman wrote: If I'm playing a game with alternating activations, and I include cheap, gakky units to burn activations for so I can try to bait my opponent's units out of position and force him to activate more important units before I do, how is that "tactics" rather than "Strategy"?
I know the answer to this, because the answer is obviously "thing I like is Tactics, thing I don't like is Strategy" but I'm really not seeing a whole lot of a distinction here.
Also, it's good to know 8th-9th are the most tactical editions of 40k yet, because AFAIK it's the one that allows you the ability to make decisions, ever, at all, during your opponent's turn and react to them.
Heroic Intervention, Activation during the fight phase and defensive stratagems ain't much, but they're a whole hell of a lot more than the...basically no decisions you got to make in your opponent's turn 5th thru 7th.
Your personal inability to understand the difference between tactics and strategy doesn't mean there are not differences.
There are absolutely tactics in 40K 9th Edition. Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out. Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.
There is lots to write about regarding the tactics of the game beyond list building. It’s just easier to write and debate list-building.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: There are absolutely tactics in 40K 9th Edition. Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out. Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.
There is lots to write about regarding the tactics of the game beyond list building. It’s just easier to write and debate list-building.
Glad you can join us. See the discusion about the difference between tactics and strategy.
This
Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out.
Is called strategy.
This
Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.
Has answers that are so obvious and shallow that it's just a flow chart and basic math. No tactical depth what so ever.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: There are absolutely tactics in 40K 9th Edition. Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out. Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.
There is lots to write about regarding the tactics of the game beyond list building. It’s just easier to write and debate list-building.
Anything you game-plan pregame is strategy. This includes things like deployment in response to the mission.
There are some minor tactics that can take place on the table, but these are generally simple and shallow. Things like, deciding which target to shoot or if fishing for a charge is worth more than hiding your unit behind some cover for a turn there are pretty simple formulas that can be used for these. I can't even think of an act you could make on a 40k table that isn't solvable by a flowchart and some math. Can you?
EDIT: To put it simply, 40k is a game about imposing your will on the opponent as strongly as possible. Your list will generally tell you exactly how you want to do this for any opponent you're likely to face. Thus for most of the game, you're not really doing any tactical thinking but just checking down to ensure that you're maximizing your strategy. In any situation where a choice seems unclear, you can likely solve your problem via some simple math and making sure that the maneuver fits with your overall plan.
My strategy with my nids was to bring Jorm with red terror, a couple units of ravenors with death spitters, 3 units of warriors with anti tank biocanons and death spitters (maybe bone swords at the time?) and a Prime to boost them all. And deepstrike them all in with a line of hormagaunts in front.
In my backfield I had a couple neurothropes providing psychic support and rear synapse for some biovores and hive guard with the needs no los guns. A couple ravener swarms spread around the deployment kept everything safe from deep strikers.
ASAP I would deepstrike in my whole mess of crap and have it start shooting all it's guns at all it's optimal targets. Then the hormagaunts would either charge into and devour any melee threats to the warriors or tie up any tanks that couldn't be destroyed by the canons/sporemines/hiveguard.
Then the raveners would charge in with the red terror and get to work as well with their rending claws.
My strategy was overwhelming threats with redundancies. Kill the warriors? Well I got more. Try to remove the melee? Well the warriors can double up on that too. Killing the hormagaunts? Don't even care. I had no high priority targets in my list and it all came at you at once.
That isn't tactics. Thats the strategy. The "tactics" was picking where my guns were pointed and who the hormagaunts charged. That was primarily decided by where they fit on the board when I deployed them and who I could kill the fastest by focus firing based on law of averages. My every game was a series of simple math equations while using the ruler we all need to play.
Is it an objective game? You can't grab objectives if your entire army is boxed into it's deployment zone with no good targets to shoot. All multi wound models except the hormagaunts (and again, I really didn't care what happened to them. They were primarily a mass distraction and fear tactic). I had so many models I could prevent you from deepstriking. I could take complete control of 2/3rds of the board and keep it under lock and key for 2-3 turns. while the enemy scrambled to figure out where to point their guns.
I didn't always win. But I won A LOT and opponents always had to play on my terms.
If the "tactics" of the game are so obvious that you can reduce the entire post-deployment game into a flow chart, then I would argue that the very creation of such a flow chart requires a recognition that there are tactical choices to be made. Maybe they are not "deep" but they nevertheless exist. A flow charts very purpose is, after all, to provide conditional decision paths. If X do A, if Y then do B.
These decisions points are tactical since they are in the service of your overall pre-game plan (post deployment). Furthermore, if tactics don't exist, then tactical choices don't exist either, in which case there is no possibility for players making better or worse moves post-deployment. Clearly that isn't the case.
It may be, in the estimation of your enormous brains, that the tactical depth of the game is trivial. Or perhaps you've simply internalized and memorized the entirety of this hypothetical flow chart masquerading as not-tactics, in which case congratulations, you've solved 40K. But for the rest of us, without the super human capability to calculate scores of statistics on the fly, nor the audacity to subject to our opponents to hours of watching the other do arithmetic, we need rules of thumbs to parse complexity, to avoid making mistakes, and to best execute our plan. Tactics are almost always an exercise in efficiency and optimization. And the means by which we accomplish that, like your flow chart itself, are worth discussing.
Does your opponent have any melee threats? Yes: Don't put your guys in a position that makes them good targets to charge unless its a bad unit for them to charge. I.E. park a devilfish in front of your firewarriors. Otherwise see No.
No. Then position yourself to optimize your guns for shooting at their intended targets to remove as many models as possible.
2 the psychic phase Use the powers you picked to do the things you picked them to do.
3. The shooting phase. Shoot your guns at the units they are in range of to cause the most damage and remove the most guns from the opponents army.
4 the charge phase If within 8 or less inches of an enemy and your unit is capable of causing good/equal or better damage in melee than their target, then charge.
The most common result on 2d6 is 7 and you only need to be within 1" to pile in and fight. So do that and remove even more models while, if any of his survive into his next turn, he has to fall back in order to shoot your guys, which will get shot at anyway. At least this way you have removed some more guns from the equation.
Mezmorki wrote: If the "tactics" of the game are so obvious that you can reduce the entire post-deployment game into a flow chart, then I would argue that the very creation of such a flow chart requires a recognition that there are tactical choices to be made. Maybe they are not "deep" but they nevertheless exist. A flow charts very purpose is, after all, to provide conditional decision paths. If X do A, if Y then do B.
Is it really a choice if option A is provably optimal and all other actions are provably less efficient? I'd argue that it isn't and thus because 40k is a solvable game that it cannot have tactics only correct and incorrect choices.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
This also means you've invested points into an army that will likely end up winning games in the loser bracket as you simply have too many bad match-ups to win a tournament. Your tactics can at best somewhat mitigate your poor list but are statistically unlikely to allow you to beat a player who just brought a better army.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the tactics I outlined.
Moving a unit into a firing lane that is safer from MM units, but offers fewer late game opportunities for other scoring is another choice one can make and one that is entirely dependent on the table's terrain and the opponent's list.
not all dice are equal obviously. a 6+ dice is way less valuable than a 2+ dice.
But 10 6+ dice are more valuable than 1 2+ dice.
Understanding the general value of dice when they go through the to hit/to wound/ to save gauntlet to cause any actual damage is important.
But more important is understanding that having a whole gak load of dice is the most important thing in the game.
Which is why you are optimizing everything every turn to remove models from your opponent. Every dice he rolls has a chance, big or small, to remove at least 1 dice from you next turn.
I pick deathspitters because Str 5 AP1 assault 3 guns on a BS 3+ (because of the prime) are a lot of pretty good dice. And those pretty good dice can pretty quickly remove a lot of dice from my opponents pool. The fact that warriors have 3 wounds means they need a lot of dice to remove my dice. And putting the biocanons in those units gives me a choice of which model to remove. Does he have a bunch of tanks? Protect the biocanons. Remove deathspitters first. Does he have almost no tanks left? Kill the canons. Protect the deathspitters.
Simple flow chart. Eliminate the enemies dice pool and your efforts will snow ball and they won't be able to recover.
2+2.
There was a thing in 8th when the nid codex first came out called a termagant bomb. You found a way to deepstrike in 30 termagants with devourers. They shoot 90 times and with a strat could shoot a second time that turn. 180 dice from a single unit. The whole game boils down to understanding the value of your dice versus their dice and making sure that your sum of dice is higher each turn.
Daedalus81 wrote: Moving a unit into a firing lane that is safer from MM units, but offers fewer late game opportunities for other scoring is another choice one can make and one that is entirely dependent on the table's terrain and the opponent's list.
Your Armiger isn't ever going to be safe from MM units so your movement does very little. The only thing you could do is heavily screen it and at that point, you have next to no board control so... Even in this case you're essentially deciding if you can afford to risk a unit to maintain board control and that should be a very simple choice based on the game state.
I taught at my Army’s Command and Staff College - I don’t feel the need to argue the semantics of strategy and tactics with you. I have followed the thread and your attempts to derail it. If you feel there are no tactics of note for 40K then by all means play some other game. I play in enough local tourneys to know that there are indeed tactics beyond list building.
I taught at my Army’s Command and Staff College - I don’t feel the need to argue the semantics of strategy and tactics with you. I have followed the thread and your attempts to derail it. If you feel there are no tactics of note for 40K then by all means play some other game. I play in enough local tourneys to know that there are indeed tactics beyond list building.
Tango, unlike real life where you have to factor in things like a lack of information, the skill and morale of your unit, your ammo count, your specific mission and ToE; 40k is just math. It isn't that deep.
I taught at my Army’s Command and Staff College - I don’t feel the need to argue the semantics of strategy and tactics with you. I have followed the thread and your attempts to derail it. If you feel there are no tactics of note for 40K then by all means play some other game. I play in enough local tourneys to know that there are indeed tactics beyond list building.
If you actually taught in an "Army’s Command and Staff College" then you should have been using the correct words. And you can claim to play as many games in as many situations as you would like. Until somebody can provide some evidence for this supposed deep tactical game that 40k "can be" I aint buying it.
I "have a degree in game design" and I know from my way-too-expensive piece of paper that you won't believe in (and thats fine too) that what 40k has is not tactics at all or depth. It's the infinite flat plain of tactics. Canadian 5th (who I often disagree with) is entirely correct. If you have 4 choices but only 1 of them is good then what you have is in fact the illusion of choice. Picking the non optimal choice isn't tactical. It's just reading a choose your own adventure book, turning the page, and finding out you died.
Lance845 wrote: I "have a degree in game design" and I know from my way-too-expensive piece of paper that you won't believe in (and thats fine too) that what 40k has is not tactics at all or depth. It's the infinite flat plain of tactics. Canadian 5th (who I often disagree with) is entirely correct. If you have 4 choices but only 1 of them is good then what you have is in fact the illusion of choice. Picking the non optimal choice isn't tactical. It's just reading a choose your own adventure book, turning the page, and finding out you died.
I actually find myself coming to the side of wanting to cut some options from 40k after all. As much as I enjoy mechanically distinct choices in wargear, I'm also seeing how few of them are actually taken and something that isn't taken probably shouldn't have space dedicated to rules about it. Plus I'm realizing that the best system to run many kinds of adventures in ends up being something like Fudge which offers unlimited choice rather than the bounded choice of even a sprawling system like 3.x. I'll always love 3.x for the character-building puzzle it presents but I won't miss the prep time as a DM or the deep power imbalance that could easily derail a game.
Daedalus81 wrote: Moving a unit into a firing lane that is safer from MM units, but offers fewer late game opportunities for other scoring is another choice one can make and one that is entirely dependent on the table's terrain and the opponent's list.
Your Armiger isn't ever going to be safe from MM units so your movement does very little. The only thing you could do is heavily screen it and at that point, you have next to no board control so... Even in this case you're essentially deciding if you can afford to risk a unit to maintain board control and that should be a very simple choice based on the game state.
I feel like your lack of time spent playing the game shows here. It is way, way, way easier to hide an armiger these days. That's partly the reason people opt for attack bikes over eradicators - movement is very important.
I think you are using strategy when you really mean planning. There is indeed a planning phase to the game. It’s important, but being able to plan effectively means that you have to know how it can play out. Tactics and planning are intertwined - they are the same thing at this level.
The planning phase as we assess the situation before the first turn is important and would be worthy of tactics discussions outside of list building. Tactics discussions of what happens during the game would also be valuable. Perhaps you have solved the game and have so many LVO trophies that you are bored? That’s OK. The rest of us can have good tactics discussions.
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like your lack of time spent playing the game shows here. It is way, way, way easier to hide an armiger these days. That's partly the reason people opt for attack bikes over eradicators - movement is very important.
How do you hide it from a deep strike or from units coming in on a flank? What do you do when there isn't 5" tall terrain near objectives? How are you screening out against MM attack bikes? There are reasons why Knights are a gatekeeper faction who aren't often going better than 3 - 2 at events.
EDIT: If you were facing a Harlequins list how are you keeping your Knights safe?
I think you are using strategy when you really mean planning. There is indeed a planning phase to the game. It’s important, but being able to plan effectively means that you have to know how it can play out. Tactics and planning are intertwined - they are the same thing at this level.
Your strategy is your plan. Thats what a strategy is.
The planning phase as we assess the situation before the first turn is important and would be worthy of tactics discussions outside of list building. Tactics discussions of what happens during the game would also be valuable. Perhaps you have solved the game and have so many LVO trophies that you are bored? That’s OK. The rest of us can have good tactics discussions.
I have presented some pretty solid evidence so far. Both in listing my flow chart and detailing how the game boils down to measuring dice pool value. I even took my nid list without posting the point for point list and presented how my strategy works in the game and what "tactical" decisions I make in the game itself.
Don't just tell me the game has tactics. Prove it. Where is your evidence that you are doing anything but pointing your guns at the optimal targets and that it is anything but a binary choice of optimal decision or sub optimal decision?
In order to have tactics you need to be able to play against the opponent. Not the games math. In 40k you can't.
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like your lack of time spent playing the game shows here. It is way, way, way easier to hide an armiger these days. That's partly the reason people opt for attack bikes over eradicators - movement is very important.
How do you hide it from a deep strike or from units coming in on a flank? What do you do when there isn't 5" tall terrain near objectives? How are you screening out against MM attack bikes? There are reasons why Knights are a gatekeeper faction who aren't often going better than 3 - 2 at events.
Deepstrike is easy, because most MM units don't do that. You can pod devs, but then you're spending more than twice the points to kill it and they're dead next turn. Strategic reserves is a known quantity and you can control the possible places they can show up - which is another tactic of spreading along one table edge to push out units from showing up there.. A single attack bike is two shots and isn't going to have a good chance at bracketing unless its w/i 12".
Knights struggle, because four big knights is a bad idea mostly because it is hard to capture objectives not because they're dying too fast.
Some lists are less dynamic. DA that drop terminators in the middle and say "come at me, bro"? Pretty bland. When I run past their them to go to their really light backfield? Good fun.
Daedalus81 wrote: Deepstrike is easy, because most MM units don't do that. You can pod devs, but then you're spending more than twice the points to kill it and they're dead next turn.
If the Armiger is the biggest thing you have then the pod still makes sense. If it isn't, then they'd just pod in against a larger juicier target and make back their points and then some.
Strategic reserves is a known quantity and you can control the possible places they can show up - which is another tactic of spreading along one table edge to push out units from showing up there.
If you're doing that it means you have a unit holding nothing. Unless you're spending the CP to bring in guard your army has no options natively to fill this role and if you are paying CP then that screen cost CP and 55 points and is doing very little.
A single attack bike is two shots and isn't going to have a good chance at bracketing unless its w/i 12".
Most good lists are running them in packs of 3. That's a good chance at dropping an Armiger into its lowest bracket and has 26" threat range which can be boosted further if you're willing to use a stratagem.
Some lists are less dynamic. DA that drop terminators in the middle and say "come at me, bro"? Pretty bland. When I run past their them to go to their really light backfield? Good fun.
If a list isn't dynamic with at least some mobile elements it's a terrible list. Even DG uses mobile units to gain board presence.
Rarely are there more than 3 bikes or so. Even 6 shots is only 10 damage when under half range. Whether or not I get shots on them first depends on who goes first, how they use the terrain, and their target priorities.
And this is why discussing tactics is so hard, because it all comes down to what is on the table along with the choices made up to that point. I can spread out - the bikes can't be everywhere even if they can be there faster. If I straddle the board and they commit into short range on one end then they'll really be ineffective on the other board edge. If they don't go in short to be able to cover more table then they won't kill me as quickly.
Maybe they took more bikes. Maybe we're playing hammerhead and I have less room to maneuver, but more cover. Maybe the rest of their army is really fast and coming into my territory more than I'd like.
There's an endless list of ifs, ands, and buts to consider. Games aren't going to be genius level chess play, but then I hate memorizing chess openings so I call that a plus.
Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.
In 9th the better player wins. Period.
There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".
Games of 9th are won by the player, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.
In 9th the better player wins. Period.
There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".
Games of 9th are won by the player, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.
If this is the case why is the tournament scene, as diverse as it is, rather saturated with certain specific factions owning an outsized share of the top positions while others languish? It can't be solely everybody being meta chasers who only bring a list that has won before as we're seeing a variety of lists show up to events and not advance with any real shot at winning.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.
In 9th the better player wins. Period.
There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".
Games of 9th are won by the player, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.
If this is the case why is the tournament scene, as diverse as it is, rather saturated with certain specific factions owning an outsized share of the top positions while others languish? It can't be solely everybody being meta chasers who only bring a list that has won before as we're seeing a variety of lists show up to events and not advance with any real shot at winning.
Because as I said in a previous post, a meta list compared to a good one will give you a little edge.
When you reach the high echelons of a big event, the players skills start to become similar. If everything is the same except for the list, then statiscally you will see more meta lists than non-meta ones. Said in another way, if there isn't a "better" player at the table, then the lists start speaking.
If you look at the results from smaller events, you don't have so many meta lists in the top spots, since there usually are one or two local players which are just better than the other ones and win with their pet factions.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
Nobody is arguing there are no tactics in 40k. The argument is they're so shallow as to not really be enough of a differentiator in the outcome of the game compared to the army list or getting the first turn.
List building in 9th is absolutely not secondary to play on the table. The list is overwhelmingly what determines the most likely victor in a game of 40k. Obviously a list can still be played badly, or the game played badly overall, but those are outliers and eradicating those sort of mistakes from your game is trivially easy. IME, most players simply don't think very deeply about the game, which leads some people to think it's deeper than it is because so many players make such rudimentary errors as not keeping track of the VP situation. I'm not knocking those players - people play this game for a whole variety of reasons. Competitive, tournament-style games is only one reason (and, I would argue, the worst).
I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not. That changed quite a while ago, but what 8th introduced was near-certainty in the dice rolls too, especially to-hit and to-wound rolls. With re-rolls being so easily available, alongside +1 to hit and wound, even the results of your dice rolls rarely feels random so there isn't even much contingency planning needed int he case of bad rolls. That problem is solved at the list building stage.
From what I have perceived in 9th edition, the ability to think and plan a few turns ahead, and adapt/stick to that plan in future turns - which is a big part of decision making, and problem solve as you go, and the most important aspect is diligence, ensuring you are out of LOS, or you do deploy in a fashion that can maximise your damage etc is probably more important than list building in the current meta, and the ability to process the information to do all simultaneously, with accuracy and precision is a huge boon to a player.
Certain lists will trounce other lists, I think that will always be part of the game, but an underpowered list in the hands of a more skilled player is usually beating an uber powered list in the hands of a less skilled player, the only time that is not being the case is when the dice gods get involved.
I really rate Lawrences approach at TTT, and it's been interesting to hear him not only speak allowed recently in games of his intentions and justifications for certain actions, but also in his coaching of his opponent on the mistakes they are making and questioning their decisions... There is more to the game than a list, even more so in 9th.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not.
The specific issue with not having pre-measuring is that it rewards players for having certain attributes/abilities another player may lack, such as very good spacial awareness and estimation of distance, this is not something that is a skill as such, and such cannot be really improved to a point you have parity with the player with such ability, you have it or you don't and can only marginally improve it... Without pre-measuring you are handing a huge advantage to the above player that other skills their opponent may have will not be able to match in some respect as it is such a huge boon for a game where estimation of measurement is so important.
I think people are overstating the simplicity of tactics in 40k, although I do agree that they are shallower than most other games.
9th at least improved this markedly over 8th as terrain means positioning of units is actually relevant now and among other improvements.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not.
The specific issue with not having pre-measuring is that it rewards players for having certain attributes/abilities another player may lack, such as very good spacial awareness and estimation of distance, this is not something that is a skill as such, and such cannot be really improved to a point you have parity with the player with such ability, you have it or you don't and can only marginally improve it... Without pre-measuring you are handing a huge advantage to the above player that other skills their opponent may have will not be able to match in some respect as it is such a huge boon for a game where estimation of measurement is so important.
You've edited out the second part of that point, which is the most important one. I understand some people don't like things like estimating ranges as part of game design and also understand there are perfectly valid design reasons to remove it. I don't necessarily think 40k removing estimation of ranges is overall a bad thing. What is bad is doing so while also removing randomness almost everywhere else, especially with dice rolls. The general increase in lethality is also a factor here (of which re-rolls and +1 bonuses are a major culprit) because it removes variance through the brute force of weight of dice.
There is a lot of talk of maths and logic and flow charts and such in this thread but I bet when you are actually at the table it's a different story. There's no substitute for experience obviously, but the game is constantly evolving, so there's that too.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not.
The specific issue with not having pre-measuring is that it rewards players for having certain attributes/abilities another player may lack, such as very good spacial awareness and estimation of distance, this is not something that is a skill as such, and such cannot be really improved to a point you have parity with the player with such ability, you have it or you don't and can only marginally improve it... Without pre-measuring you are handing a huge advantage to the above player that other skills their opponent may have will not be able to match in some respect as it is such a huge boon for a game where estimation of measurement is so important.
You've edited out the second part of that point, which is the most important one. I understand some people don't like things like estimating ranges as part of game design and also understand there are perfectly valid design reasons to remove it. I don't necessarily think 40k removing estimation of ranges is overall a bad thing. What is bad is doing so while also removing randomness almost everywhere else, especially with dice rolls. The general increase in lethality is also a factor here (of which re-rolls and +1 bonuses are a major culprit) because it removes variance through the brute force of weight of dice.
It wasn't really, I discounted the bottom part of your paragraph, not because the reduction of randomness hasn't had an impact, but the specific issue of taking away pre-measuring only impacts some people, and those people cannot catch up as they don't have the specific ability as I explained above, re-including it does not increase randomness wholesale, just for some people. The rest I tend to agree with you, however I like the reduction of randomness also, it was bonkers that you couldn't dictate when your reserves arrived for example.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.
What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.
In 9th the better player *THAT GOES FIRST* wins. Period.
There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions *AGAINST BAD PLAYERS/ARMIES* (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".
Games of 9th are won by the player *WHEN LISTS ARE EQUIVALENT*, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.
Fixed for you.
If you want to experience a better game, use 9TH Beta Maelstrom so that you can recognize how gak the GT 2020 pack is
There is a lot of talk of maths and logic and flow charts and such in this thread but I bet when you are actually at the table it's a different story. There's no substitute for experience obviously, but the game is constantly evolving, so there's that too.
Some armies play soliter or like clockwork, specially when they go first. And it doesn't even get effected what ever they are good or bad, they just have one way of playing at that is all. There very little stuff out of the norm, you can do when playing a tau army.
I think you are trying to undermine the OP’s thread with your semantics. Blistering off strategy from tactics so that you can say that tactics don’t matter. Strategy is a grand word to employ in a very tactical level game. When a company commander makes a tactical plan it is based off his estimate of the situation, part of which is considering the impact of the situation on his doctrine and tactics. They are not separate. In any case, the OP had a good thread about Tactics threads that go beyond list- building.
I agree that the planning aspect of the game is very important. If you make your plan after you deploy your models you are in trouble. Having said that, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. There is another player in the game. Sometimes the game goes as planned. Other times - not so much. Yes, there are times in the game when the choice of targets is obvious. Other times it isn’t. Mistakes get made in the heat of the moment. Additionally, what is obvious to one person might not be to another. The most important choices are often in the movement phase. I play weekly when there is not a lockdown, including four tourneys in 9th Ed. I am trying a new army to cleanse the palette, and I made plenty of mistakes two weeks ago in a six round tourney in how I moved some of my units.
There is value in Tactics threads that go beyond list building/ design. Some of those would discuss planning. Others would discuss how to get the most out of the movement phase/charge phase/fight phase.
Does your opponent have any melee threats?
Yes: Don't put your guys in a position that makes them good targets to charge unless its a bad unit for them to charge. I.E. park a devilfish in front of your firewarriors. Otherwise see No.
No. Then position yourself to optimize your guns for shooting at their intended targets to remove as many models as possible.
2 the psychic phase
Use the powers you picked to do the things you picked them to do.
3. The shooting phase.
Shoot your guns at the units they are in range of to cause the most damage and remove the most guns from the opponents army.
4 the charge phase
If within 8 or less inches of an enemy and your unit is capable of causing good/equal or better damage in melee than their target, then charge.
The most common result on 2d6 is 7 and you only need to be within 1" to pile in and fight. So do that and remove even more models while, if any of his survive into his next turn, he has to fall back in order to shoot your guys, which will get shot at anyway. At least this way you have removed some more guns from the equation.
???
Profit.
The problem is that this flowchart has no grounding in 9th at all.
As an example, lets say I'm playing against a fast army like Harlequins or Slaanesh Daemons. I've managed to roll to go first.
Should I move up the table to get on to the mid-board objectives?
The upside - I've got some bodies on those objectives, if they are not cleared/contested I may score 15 points on the Primary.
Also, there is a risk that if I don't get some stuff up the table *now*, I may get screened out such that I'm never going to be able to.
The downside? By throwing stuff 12-15" forward, I going to be in their short range guns (Harlequins) and allow very easy, essentially guaranteed first turn charges.
If I don't move up though, my opponent will just claim all those objectives, and they'll be on for getting 15 points. But then maybe that facilitates an easy charge in my 2nd turn. I might want to aim for a low scoring game, where we both expect to largely deny each other on the central Primary points and instead claw out a win on secondaries. The scenario and terrain all impact this.
Now as said if you crunch these numbers really hard - i.e. simulate thousands of games, exploring the probability curves generated by all the various choices - there probably is a right statistical decision that is most likely to see you win the game. But the idea its obvious is false. Unless you've got a super computer in your head I don't see how you'd work it out. It also applies to essentially any game where you don't have to physically do something.
I found it a bit overblown - but an example of this was the "what if you move Magnus backwards" discussion about a year ago. It turns out the game changes if you don't adopt this approach of "he's a one-way missile, ride or die". I guess you could say you just re-calculate your turn as per the flowchart in accordance with this new information and since you are a supercomputer the optimal approach is obvious, but its just not real life.
I think you are trying to undermine the OP’s thread with your semantics.
I am not. I answered the question in the OP. Table-level tactics are called tactics. Army List Tactics is part of strategy. He asked why it's so hard to talk about tactics and why it always ends up talking about list building. I answered that it's what happens when there are no tactics to speak of and strategy is all the game is composed of.
Blistering off strategy from tactics so that you can say that tactics don’t matter. Strategy is a grand word to employ in a very tactical level game. When a company commander makes a tactical plan it is based off his estimate of the situation, part of which is considering the impact of the situation on his doctrine and tactics. They are not separate. In any case, the OP had a good thread about Tactics threads that go beyond list- building.
Crack open a dictionary my friend. Or go take one of those classes you taught.
I agree that the planning aspect of the game is very important. If you make your plan after you deploy your models you are in trouble. Having said that, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. There is another player in the game. Sometimes the game goes as planned. Other times - not so much. Yes, there are times in the game when the choice of targets is obvious. Other times it isn’t. Mistakes get made in the heat of the moment. Additionally, what is obvious to one person might not be to another. The most important choices are often in the movement phase. I play weekly when there is not a lockdown, including four tourneys in 9th Ed. I am trying a new army to cleanse the palette, and I made plenty of mistakes two weeks ago in a six round tourney in how I moved some of my units.
There is value in Tactics threads that go beyond list building/ design. Some of those would discuss planning. Others would discuss how to get the most out of the movement phase/charge phase/fight phase.
This isn't JUST a tactics thread. It started with a question about why the discussions go the way they do. But if you want it to be a tactics thread, then me and Canadian have listed all the tactics that exist in 40k without going into specific armies. But whos principles broadly apply to all armies. Instead of trying to tell me I am derailing the thread maybe you should respond to those points? Instead of telling me other tactics exist why don't you actually post some?
Does your opponent have any melee threats? Yes: Don't put your guys in a position that makes them good targets to charge unless its a bad unit for them to charge. I.E. park a devilfish in front of your firewarriors. Otherwise see No.
No. Then position yourself to optimize your guns for shooting at their intended targets to remove as many models as possible.
2 the psychic phase Use the powers you picked to do the things you picked them to do.
3. The shooting phase. Shoot your guns at the units they are in range of to cause the most damage and remove the most guns from the opponents army.
4 the charge phase If within 8 or less inches of an enemy and your unit is capable of causing good/equal or better damage in melee than their target, then charge.
The most common result on 2d6 is 7 and you only need to be within 1" to pile in and fight. So do that and remove even more models while, if any of his survive into his next turn, he has to fall back in order to shoot your guys, which will get shot at anyway. At least this way you have removed some more guns from the equation.
???
Profit.
The problem is that this flowchart has no grounding in 9th at all.
As an example, lets say I'm playing against a fast army like Harlequins or Slaanesh Daemons. I've managed to roll to go first.
Should I move up the table to get on to the mid-board objectives? The upside - I've got some bodies on those objectives, if they are not cleared/contested I may score 15 points on the Primary. Also, there is a risk that if I don't get some stuff up the table *now*, I may get screened out such that I'm never going to be able to. The downside? By throwing stuff 12-15" forward, I going to be in their short range guns (Harlequins) and allow very easy, essentially guaranteed first turn charges. If I don't move up though, my opponent will just claim all those objectives, and they'll be on for getting 15 points. But then maybe that facilitates an easy charge in my 2nd turn. I might want to aim for a low scoring game, where we both expect to largely deny each other on the central Primary points and instead claw out a win on secondaries. The scenario and terrain all impact this.
You answered your question. Do you want to risk giving up the mid field and victory points or do you want to contest the mid field, give yourself flexibility in options later in the game, and grab some victory points for yourself. It's a super simple equation man.
Make use of terrain and positioning to minimize their charges. Put unfavorable targets in front (see the devilfish example) so that when they charge they have to charge bs they don't actually want to be charging. Do all that to the best of your ability with the resources you have. If you don't have the resources to do that then you need to go back to your list building and strategy and bring better things to protect yourself against their threats. Further, if you hold back then THEY will effectively claim first turn advantage when they start shooting you first. Your dice pool value will depreciate faster because you didn't capitalize in taking out a chunk of theirs when you had the opportunity.
Now as said if you crunch these numbers really hard - i.e. simulate thousands of games, exploring the probability curves generated by all the various choices - there probably is a right statistical decision that is most likely to see you win the game. But the idea its obvious is false. Unless you've got a super computer in your head I don't see how you'd work it out. It also applies to essentially any game where you don't have to physically do something.
No the equation is just not as complex as you are making it out to be. Controlling the midfield is extremely powerful. Or more acurately, not being able to move freely for yourself is extremely damning. Don't let your opponent do it.
I found it a bit overblown - but an example of this was the "what if you move Magnus backwards" discussion about a year ago. It turns out the game changes if you don't adopt this approach of "he's a one-way missile, ride or die". I guess you could say you just re-calculate your turn as per the flowchart in accordance with this new information and since you are a supercomputer the optimal approach is obvious, but its just not real life.
It doesn't take a super computer. You have a unit on the table. You look at where the opponent is. How do you maximize the impact of that one unit? See flow chart. Great. Now move on to the second unit. How do you maximize the impact of THAT one unit? See flow chart. Great. And so on..
These big complex networks of interconnected units... your looking at the trees for the forest and being overwhelmed by it's sheer size. Stop. Look at one tree. It's not so complex.
It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Post me a screenshot of a table with models on it (deployment, T2, T3, doesn't matter) and give me the secondaries chosen by each side (along with all WT and psychic powers), current primary score and I'd be happy to.
I think I tried to do that, and rather than talk about which option would be best for deep striking and for what reason, they just said "the answer is obvious because math" and started talking about how tactics didn't exist.
Doesn't the DG Morty+termi spam list more or less have fixed first two turn, the way it functions with getting on objectives, morty doing his things lawn mawer slowing down enemy with the half movment plague spread.
I think the only time they play different, is when they play a mirror and go second.
Same with harlis, all their games seem to be very similar in how they are played, if they go first. it is the mock up turn 2+ turns that tend to look different, based on what is left alive and how good the rolls went.
The only real tactic is target priority in this game. The strategy pretty much breaks down to what order you shoot things in and moving units so they will be able to use the optimal order. There is some thought that goes into it but I would hardly call it "tactics" and I am good at it - better than most but it is because I understand this game is about removing models. That is what this game has always been about.
What you are describing here is arguably logistics, rather than tactics, as you are basically discussing "points economy" rather than the "action economy" that typically defines tactics in gaming. And that, in a nutshell, is basically why tactics are largely irrelevant in 40k. Which isn't to say they don't exist - they do, but they generally aren't as meaningful and are rarely as important as the strategy and the aforementioned "logistics".
I know the answer to this, because the answer is obviously "thing I like is Tactics, thing I don't like is Strategy" but I'm really not seeing a whole lot of a distinction here.
This is why I mostly avoid these types of discussions. They ultimately are derailed by people that fancy themselves as an armchair Clausewitz or whatever that are offended by the perceived slight to their e-peen when someone suggests that their skillset isn't as meaningful or relevant as they wish it was. Its not really helped by the opposite sides of these arguments trying to feather themselves up by inanely claiming that whatever decision-points that exist within the game are no-brainers or obvious. They certainly aren't *hard* choices, but the implication that they are essentially "automatic" choices or are so simplistic that they can be easily resolved at a glance using a mental flowchart or a simple probability calculation that a 3 year old could mentally process is itself a far cry from reality too.
I think people are overstating the simplicity of tactics in 40k, although I do agree that they are shallower than most other games.
9th at least improved this markedly over 8th as terrain means positioning of units is actually relevant now and among other improvements.
At last, a reasonable and level-headed assessment.
https://www.goonhammer.com/start-competing-charge-and-fight-phase/ - Bunch of positioning nuances related to charges, consolidation moves, forcing fallbacks
- Situations of when to not use your full charge move
- Wrapping units, tri-pointing
- Positioning around walls
- tips/tactics on charge defense
Karol wrote: Doesn't the DG Morty+termi spam list more or less have fixed first two turn, the way it functions with getting on objectives, morty doing his things lawn mawer slowing down enemy with the half movment plague spread.
I think the only time they play different, is when they play a mirror and go second.
Same with harlis, all their games seem to be very similar in how they are played, if they go first. it is the mock up turn 2+ turns that tend to look different, based on what is left alive and how good the rolls went.
Harlequin gameplay strategy plays completely differently if your opponent has valuable vehicle targets available on the board for you to try and attack turn 1 vs if they don't have that.
Part of why they're so good is that they're so absurdly mobile that they have tons of options - they can advance forward in a big clump with the shadowseer making everyone super difficult to kill, they can explode all over the board grabbing every objective and splitting your forces up multiple ways, and they can send out multiple squads to various areas to attack units they want to target.
The faster your movement speed in 40k is, the less your overall strategy needs to play fixed. That's why DG terminator spam, necron warrior spam and ork boyz spam are the most fixed lists in terms of what they do on the tabletop.
Karol wrote: Doesn't the DG Morty+termi spam list more or less have fixed first two turn, the way it functions with getting on objectives, morty doing his things lawn mawer slowing down enemy with the half movment plague spread.
I think the only time they play different, is when they play a mirror and go second.
Same with harlis, all their games seem to be very similar in how they are played, if they go first. it is the mock up turn 2+ turns that tend to look different, based on what is left alive and how good the rolls went.
See, when I see players "always doing the same thing", then I start to try and think of what can be done that does disrupt that plan. Going into a tourney back in the before-times, my friend and I would practice through some games we expected to play, and we'd do these "turn 2 then re-rack" games. One player would play the scary list (proxied up a bunch) and throw it at the real list of the other player. Like the 90 Ork Boyz jumped into your face backed up by all the Smasha Gunz and Relic Shokk Attack Gunz vs my GSC and Nid list at the time. The question was "how can you deal with this?", and my standard method of deployment turned out to compare really poorly; I got swarmed right away. So we re-racked and played the first 2 turns again. Same result. We then really put our head to it, and crafted a whole different deployment arrangement. This new arrangement put models in specific locations that totally changed how the Ork's Da Jump move interacted with my front lines; changing how many models could get killed and their pile in's and consolidates. This put me into a far better position where it'd still be a tough game for me, but it was winnable now rather than "I'm just playing not to die".
All because we identified the weakness of the first moves of the Orks. So yeah, I think if players are always doing the same things because they are the generic "best" move, then they leave themselves open to studying their moves and developing counter-acting actions that deal with those specific moves - but these counter-acting actions are not intuitive. Training is required to help you identify and spot these spots and positions.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Post me a screenshot of a table with models on it (deployment, T2, T3, doesn't matter) and give me the secondaries chosen by each side (along with all WT and psychic powers), current primary score and I'd be happy to.
No. YOU post a screen shot and dig into it. I am not going to do your leg work for you.
Yarium wrote:I think I tried to do that, and rather than talk about which option would be best for deep striking and for what reason, they just said "the answer is obvious because math" and started talking about how tactics didn't exist.
I don't think the argument has been made that it's so simple that any 3 year old could do it or that it's done correctly 100% of the time by super geniuses.
The argument that has been made is that there isn't anything else to it. Just because the "tactics" or as someone else called it and I am inclined to agree, logistics, of 40k are made up of simple formulae and flow charts doesn't mean everyone does it perfectly every time. But it also doesn't make the individual choices any more complex. 40k IS won by good list building as part of a solid strategy with a firm understanding of the logistics of the game.
A comparison I have been mulling over is magic the gathering. In magic if you CAN attack and it costs you nothing to attack then not attacking is a loosing move. At every single opportunity where you can remove the opponents health or resources you need to be doing that to win. You don't trade a monster for a monster. But if you can get a hit in without loosing a monster then you sure as gak need to be attacking. 40k isn't any different. The models are resources. They come with dice every turn that can remove your dice. You need to take every opportunity to maximize your dices impact and remove theirs. Which goes back into understanding the value of dice, which is simplified into more dice is always better and making sure that you always throw more dice every turn than your opponent widens the gap between your victory and their defeat.
Where do you deep strike? Where you will have the biggest impact and remove the most dice.
Should you move into the mid field? If you don't they will and when they do they will use that chance to remove your dice.
And again, this is in big part because of how little player to player interactivity there is in the game. When I attack I attack with everything. When you attack you attack with everything. Any opportunity for me to step in and interact with your turn is novelty at best and primarily made up of no brainer decisions. "Should I deepstrike my Deathmarks in response to you deepstriking?" Yes. Thats why you put them in the list to begin with. You cannot have deep tactical decision making if your every choice in the game is defined by your strategy and the logistics of the game state.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Post me a screenshot of a table with models on it (deployment, T2, T3, doesn't matter) and give me the secondaries chosen by each side (along with all WT and psychic powers), current primary score and I'd be happy to.
No. YOU post a screen shot and dig into it. I am not going to do your leg work for you.
I'm gonna level with you. I really don't care if you're persuaded or not. I'm posting out of idle boredom. If you'd like to understand why you are mistaken, I'm happy to help. If not, that's your choice.
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
i think the smaller boards and less significant rules interaction between side and front (f.e. Armor) has significantly lowered tactical interaction imo.
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
As we talk about tactics and decisions, we're often saying things like "moving up the field is the obvious move." I agree that there are a lot of big picture binary decisions like this, e.g. do I stand still or move up.
But we seem to be glossing over a lot of the details, which gives the impression that details don't matter - but they do. If the obvious move is "yes, let's advance up the field with Unit X", the question then becomes how do you execute that move. I think there is a level of interaction in the tempo and timing between players, for example, I want to move up enough to be able to reach the objective in my following turn (assuming I can't each it this turn). How am I arranging my models in the unit as I advance? Are they in a staggered line such that the maximum number of models possible are as close to possible. Do I have shorter range weapons I need to put in front in order to get in range, but if I take return fire, would removing those models then put me out of reach of the objective (or conversely help me get out of range of other enemy weapons?) Removing your opponent's models is often the goal, but you also need to keep an eye on preserving your own models, or else you won't have anything alive to hold objectives. Continuing the example, are there opportunities to use terrain as I advance? Is it worth getting closer but actually staying out of LoS (if there is suitable terrain), even if means I won't shoot, in order to preserve my unit's model count?
I think another big consideration is that while technically decisions can be reduced to "logistics" (i.e. optimal orders), there are still two major elements of uncertainty that preclude players from making perfect choices. One is randomness, the other is your opponent's response. In regards to the first, if the "optimum" choice is to advance into range and shoot, and you roll a pile of bad dice and fail to kill a critical target, your unit is now compromised. You made a risk assessment that ended up going badly - and there are now other choices to make (or re-make). Do I need to re-prioritize other shooting to try and take out the earlier target? What do I now need to do try and keep my other unit alive? If that unit dies, what can I do with other units to make up for it and try and turn things around?
In regards to your opponent's moves - my opponents routinely do things I didn't expect them to do, and they also on occasion miss doing "an obvious move" from my vantage point (and make mistakes). But my opponent can't read my mind and doesn't necessarily see the obvious move in the same way I do. All this is to say, that even in a IGOUGO format, there are interactions between players, and you can't bank on an opponent doing a certain thing with 100% certainty. This uncertainty creates a space for tactical choices to be made.
Also aspect of the game, although one that doesn't excite me much but I nonetheless recognize adds tactical choice, are stratagems and command point management. You never know when a critical die-roll is going to go badly and you might want a spare CP to spend on a re-roll. Or that the sheer number and magnitude of stratagems that can come into play preclude you from knowing exactly what tricks your opponent might pull out of their hat, which can throw all of the careful math hammer work you've done out the window and change the whole course of the game. I think there is quite a bit of tactical nuance in this element of the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ==================================
I finished a game last night of Eldar vs. Tyranids. We were playing on short board edges with 4 objectives in neutral ground. Both of us deployed forward, and then my opponent infiltrated their two units of genestealers in the midfield in a risky but aggressive spot (which I wasn't expecting them to do).
This required me to change up the tactical moves I had planned out, as I didn't want to advance upfield and run into the genestealers too quickly. They were in heavy cover and the two groups were big. I ended up deciding to pull back and create a bit more space so that I could get at least two rounds of shooting in before having to deal with them in melee. Of course, this basically meant I was conceding the field to my opponent, who pulled ahead quickly on objectives.
I then faced a number of other tactical choices. Do I use my wave serpents with embarked units to zip across the board and contest other objective points, or do I keep my forces bunched up, concentrate down the genestealers and then try to push up aggressively and make up for lost time on the objectives?
I tried for the latter, but my opponent got a unit of hormogaunts in range to charge and the remntants of genestealers tied up my two big units of jetbikes. I few unfortunate hits rendered two of my wave serpents immobile, so they couldn't push across the board anymore. So even my fallback plan got upended. The following turns there was a lot of subtle tactical positioning to use striking scorpion and wraithguard units to provide a charge screen so that I could get my jetbikes free to zip around again.
Through all of this, my spirit seer, farseer, and warlocks were having to make some choices about what powers to use on what units. Buffing certain units might mean that it would discourage my opponent from charging that unit enough that they would move onto a different target. So how I distributed buffs to try and cajole / bait my opponent into attacking other units was critical.
My mobile wave serpents were also instrumental in protecting units by way of simply blocking the movement path of my opponent, even if it meant putting the serpent in a vulnerable spot. How I positioned these relative to my forces, and deciding how/where to block movement and what units in turn to protect was another head scratching moment.
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
Sounds like you outplayed him - maybe he didn't know you could make your goliath truck have -2 AP. That is the kinda trick that only works once. On the topic of the thread though it is not tactics to use a defensive stratagem when you are getting shot at. Just as its not tactics to use the rapid fire stratagem to double my shots with intercessors. It is prepland list buildings tactics on the table it is plug and play. Which is what we are claiming is where tactics in this game actually end.
40k is very similar to playing a tower defense game. You deploy your units on line somewhere and they shoot things when they come into range and you have some ploys to use to make your job easier. 40k just adds the element of movement - but the game is so short even if you move every turn some units can't even reach the other side of the table - so deployment plays way more a factor that movement does. I would argue that 50% of the game is determined by list construction and deployment 40% is randomness and 10% is decision making outside of deployment.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Killing matters more when you have no options to force a different game state. When the new DE book hits I bet a lot of people will find it hard to play their current limited movement lists against them.
Mezmorki wrote: It's frustrating to try and discuss Subject X, when a few participants continuously assert that Subject X doesn't even exist, or that it's existence is so trivial that there is nothing really worth discussing. You all have made your position clear many times over at this point.
Other people have come to a different conclusion based on their experiences - and I want to hear more from them. There's a chance we all might learn or discover something in the process.
I am also happy to hear from them. They claim there are more tactics. Hey all you guys. Post them. Stop telling us they exist and show us they exist. Please. I would be incredibly happy to get proven wrong. Despite what anyone here might think I love being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means I get to learn something and my ideas can grow. Stop telling me you CAN do it and DO it.
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
Sounds like you outplayed him - maybe he didn't know you could make your goliath truck have -2 AP. That is the kinda trick that only works once. On the topic of the thread though it is not tactics to use a defensive stratagem when you are getting shot at. Just as its not tactics to use the rapid fire stratagem to double my shots with intercessors. It is prepland list buildings tactics on the table it is plug and play. Which is what we are claiming is where tactics in this game actually end.
40k is very similar to playing a tower defense game. You deploy your units on line somewhere and they shoot things when they come into range and you have some ploys to use to make your job easier. 40k just adds the element of movement - but the game is so short even if you move every turn some units can't even reach the other side of the table - so deployment plays way more a factor that movement does. I would argue that 50% of the game is determined by list construction and deployment 40% is randomness and 10% is decision making outside of deployment.
I'm not responding to this idiotic "tactics don't exist" canard, in my eyes it's pretty much over when you've got someone who's worked for an actual armed forces organization saying "no, your definition of tactics vs strategy is not correct here folks."
I'm responding to your statement that "killing is what wins the game". By pointing out that, in many of my games of 9th, an opponent deciding to focus more of their gameplay on killing, rather than scoring, has in fact led to them losing the game.
Even if my opponent had anticipated my ability to ignore AP-1, or lets say I forgot to use that stratagem, he would have probably wiped out the goliath with the double-shooting squad of primaris marines, then the 10 intercessors would have killed the squad inside, then the 5 remaining intercessors would have gotten to deal 1.2 damage to a ridgerunner or something. Big whoop. The only thing that acolyte squad ended up doing in the game was contribute to wiping out most of the deep strike force of eradicators and inceptors that came down.
My opponent deployed and played his forces to optimize their killing power - fielding barebones HQs whose only job was handing out buffs, keeping the squads clumped together and max-sized rather than combat squadded in order to get those buffs, selecting secondaries that would not require him to forgo attacking with his troop squads, and spending his CPs to maximise the offense of those units.
And that's a large part of why he lost. His big clump in the deployment zone meant I was able to steal the lighter defended objective in his DZ, which gave me 4pts for every turn I held it and my own home objectives with a mission secondary. His big clump around another captain out of deep strike to maximise offense meant his deep strikers were in 1 place instead of potentially 4 places, which meant I could just fling a suicide squad at them to reduce their numbers and effectively, after that, ignore them as they trundled around the board after I just moved my ridgerunners to the complete opposite corner behind some obscuring terrain. The eradicators' second shot was against like jackal bikes or something.
The fact that my opponent played with a fixed, pre-planned strategy based on killing that was built out from the list phase and just took the 3 general use secondaries everyone chooses meant I could probably have won with even more of a joke of a list than you just have by default by nature of playing GSC in 9th.
The things you described on the last page are all tactics. Boxing someone in, overwhelming with threats are tactics. What you call strategy is just planning. That planning employs and visualizes tactics. Some of what you describe could be called a Concept of Operations.
If your argument is that planning is important to victory in 40k then great. But your planning involved the understanding and employment of tactics. If you can truly effortlessly visualize victory then it is likely due to a deep understanding of the tactics of 40k. I look forward to your Tactics articles!
I dont block anyone. I just havent had time to go back through the thread and find whatever it is you are referencing yet. Out and about with chores today.
Lance845 wrote: No. If you are in the position to do it you either do it or don't. It's not calculus. Either your big expensive unit is at risk or it isn't. It's either cutting swathes through the enemies army or it isn't. Every turn it isn't your points are not paying for themselves. If it dies then your points are gone. 2+2. Whats the best course of action in the moment.
Don't make it out to be more complicated than it is.
Your assessment would be more correct in 8th. When killing isn't the main path to success then the choices change quite a bit.
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.
These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.
Killing is still the main path to success. It is just more about where your units are when they are killing.
Before in 8th with my ultras I wouldn't leave my deployment zone if I had a ranged advantage - I would shoot them down - then win in the later rounds with no opposition. Now with the loss of a turn in 9th - It forces me to leave my deployment zone and start scoring objectives in earlier rounds. All it has done is change my unit selection a bit and made a responsive CC unit more attractive because I am now going to the middle of the table. It is still just as much about killing units. In fact with the killing secondaries - you could even stay killing is more important because I almost always take the kill more secondary.
Honestly, I've felt like the last 3 games I've won, I've won because my opponent chose to optimise their list more around killing and I've chosen not to.
To use my last game as an example: ultras vs GSC, I was playing the GSC. I had 2 characters and 2 min-sized troops squads in deep strike and 2 min-sized biker squads on the board whose primary job was to keep those secondary points coming. My opponent had multiple squads he chose not to Combat Squad in order to keep them as optimal as possible for stratagem and aura purposes (chapter master reroll to hit) and he picked 2 of his 3 secondaries to be the ones that basically happen automatically to avoid the ones that required him to take actions instead of using his squads to kill stuff.
He got first turn, and by spending 1CP on Evasive Maneuvering I was able to be a gigantic pain in his ass with a Goliath truck, requiring him to pump a redemptor dreadnought (he half-healthed it with that before I used the stratagem to ignore his AP-1 and AP-2) two squads of eliminators, a double-shooting 10 man intercessor block and then another 10-man intercessor block to finally take it out, then the last 5 intercessors didn't have enough juice to wipe out the squad inside, who proceeded to on my turn spend another 1cp and resurrect back to almost full HP, at which point they popped behind some Obscuring terrain and waited for his deep strikers to come in.
My opponent ended up killing more points than I did by the end of the game, but couldn't score for gak - he got like 6pts for raise the banners, 10pts for Bring it Down, and 4pts for engage on all fronts. By just hiding gakky 55pt units around the board and not choosing to do anything with them I was able to score 40 secondary points, and force my opponent to do stuff like move his 130pt jump pack buffer HQ away from the units he was supposed to buff, away from the objectives, directly into the corner of his own deployment zone to try and hunt down some dumb idiot with a pair of knives teleporting Homer Simpson into his backfield.
Sounds like you outplayed him - maybe he didn't know you could make your goliath truck have -2 AP. That is the kinda trick that only works once. On the topic of the thread though it is not tactics to use a defensive stratagem when you are getting shot at. Just as its not tactics to use the rapid fire stratagem to double my shots with intercessors. It is prepland list buildings tactics on the table it is plug and play. Which is what we are claiming is where tactics in this game actually end.
40k is very similar to playing a tower defense game. You deploy your units on line somewhere and they shoot things when they come into range and you have some ploys to use to make your job easier. 40k just adds the element of movement - but the game is so short even if you move every turn some units can't even reach the other side of the table - so deployment plays way more a factor that movement does. I would argue that 50% of the game is determined by list construction and deployment 40% is randomness and 10% is decision making outside of deployment.
I'm not responding to this idiotic "tactics don't exist" canard, in my eyes it's pretty much over when you've got someone who's worked for an actual armed forces organization saying "no, your definition of tactics vs strategy is not correct here folks."
I'm responding to your statement that "killing is what wins the game". By pointing out that, in many of my games of 9th, an opponent deciding to focus more of their gameplay on killing, rather than scoring, has in fact led to them losing the game.
Even if my opponent had anticipated my ability to ignore AP-1, or lets say I forgot to use that stratagem, he would have probably wiped out the goliath with the double-shooting squad of primaris marines, then the 10 intercessors would have killed the squad inside, then the 5 remaining intercessors would have gotten to deal 1.2 damage to a ridgerunner or something. Big whoop. The only thing that acolyte squad ended up doing in the game was contribute to wiping out most of the deep strike force of eradicators and inceptors that came down.
My opponent deployed and played his forces to optimize their killing power - fielding barebones HQs whose only job was handing out buffs, keeping the squads clumped together and max-sized rather than combat squadded in order to get those buffs, selecting secondaries that would not require him to forgo attacking with his troop squads, and spending his CPs to maximise the offense of those units.
And that's a large part of why he lost. His big clump in the deployment zone meant I was able to steal the lighter defended objective in his DZ, which gave me 4pts for every turn I held it and my own home objectives with a mission secondary. His big clump around another captain out of deep strike to maximise offense meant his deep strikers were in 1 place instead of potentially 4 places, which meant I could just fling a suicide squad at them to reduce their numbers and effectively, after that, ignore them as they trundled around the board after I just moved my ridgerunners to the complete opposite corner behind some obscuring terrain. The eradicators' second shot was against like jackal bikes or something.
The fact that my opponent played with a fixed, pre-planned strategy based on killing that was built out from the list phase and just took the 3 general use secondaries everyone chooses meant I could probably have won with even more of a joke of a list than you just have by default by nature of playing GSC in 9th.
I have acknowledged that tactics exist during the list building part of the game. Where you'd decide whether a barebones HQ or a decked out smash captain be suits your army list. Or in the situation where you take 10 man intercessor squad instead of 5 man tactical squads with multi meltas and storm bolters for more board coverage. His plan was already made at the list building phase he just miss played his list and shot a weapon inefficiently which I've already covered - that is the only tactic on the table after deployment - the order you shoot things in and what you shoot them with. You can claim that is tactical. Id argue that it is done at the list building level.
I see people trying to use "tactics" all the time. Getting smashed.
"I'm going to deploy this unit - in this transport - while this unit buffs that trasnport - and this unit lays cover fire!"
Then the storm raven gets one shot because it is a terrible unit that costs too much and you just lost the game.
Don't include terrible unit. It is the best tactic in the game.
The things you described on the last page are all tactics. Boxing someone in, overwhelming with threats are tactics. What you call strategy is just planning. That planning employs and visualizes tactics. Some of what you describe could be called a Concept of Operations.
If your argument is that planning is important to victory in 40k then great. But your planning involved the understanding and employment of tactics. If you can truly effortlessly visualize victory then it is likely due to a deep understanding of the tactics of 40k. I look forward to your Tactics articles!
Perhaps we are trying to pass the deep understanding down. Ignore all that other BS. Bring the best units. Kill their best units. For shooting units...try to maintain maximum range and deploy within range of your desired target. For melee units try to exploit first turn charge...if you can't and can deploy in reserve...do that instead. The game is so incredibly simple. Overthinking will actually lose you the game. The point I am trying to make is that the choices in your game are already made for you for the most part based on the unts you brought to the table. The dice do the rest.
I definitely agree that due to how the game is currently structured, a large amount of the decision making involved in 40k comes down to things that happen prior to the first movement phase.
The selection of your list, the decisions you make while setting up for a game, and the placement of units you set up during the deployment phase do probably decide some 60-70% of the outcome of the game.
But your advice about 'always killing things the most efficiently" is just absolute crap. I'm sorry. Starting your units hidden from the thing that can most optimally kill them in your opponent's list is a MILLION times better than always starting them in position to always attempt to use their optimal offense immediately. If you're finding that the game is always seeming to be decided by who goes first, that's probably a contributing factor right there.
I could have started my jackal bikes in position to advance up the board and attack the most optimal target for them in my opponent's army - the T5 3+ or T4 3+ marines - but doing so would have allowed my opponent to kill a ridgerunner with his dread and snipers and the two jackal squads with his anti-infantry units. Instead, he had to choose between trying to get through the extra toughness and wounds of one of my goliaths to open up a viable target for the intercessors, or killing an achilles and then probably not having quite enough in the tank to kill a second one.
For that matter, based on the internet's grand wisdom, the achilles is the GSC's best unit - never leave home without 3 or 4 of 'em! but against my opponent's army, besides the dreadnought there wasn't much for them to really sink their teeth into. I was also able to use terrain and movement speed to make the Eradicators irrelevant after their initial drop, meaning I didn't really have to worry about targeting them, despite them being two of my opponent's "best units" - I left them alone in favor of beating up on my opponent's troop squads so I could keep bullying them out of objectives.
I also had multiple melee squads in transports around the board that I could have put into reserves but chose not to, even though those melee squads could not reliably turn 1 charge should I go first. Everything you take off the board and put in reserves cedes board presence to your opponent and every additional squad you want to put down turn 2 is going to have diminishing returns just by nature of you only having so many optimal deep striking spots.
If you're going to brainlessly default to deploying units to maximise casualties should you go first, you'll lose more games than someone who brainlessly defaults to deploying units to minimize casualties should you go second.
I honestly don't have a lot of exp with GSC but they are kind of a unique army when special deployment rules. It doesn't change a lot though. Units you can't see aren't on objectives. You take the objectives. Then when targets present themselves - you kill their best units. If you can't - you lose.
Xenomancers wrote: I honestly don't have a lot of exp with GSC but they are kind of a unique army when special deployment rules. It doesn't change a lot though. Units you can't see aren't on objectives. You take the objectives. Then when targets present themselves - you kill their best units. If you can't - you lose.
You don't score on the first turn, and it is unusual for an opponent to be able to cross the board and claim the objectives nearest or in your DZ top of turn 1, and going second you aren't going to be able to take midboard objectives anyway.
Seizing midboard objectives hyperaggressively can offer an opponent opportunities they didn't otherwise have, should they not have deployed their units in the suicidally aggressive manner you believe should be the default.
I understand that I'm talking about one particular gamestate of GSC vs marines because it's the most recent example I can readily recall, but I don't think you get to worm your way out of "killing is always paramount" in the middle of a meta absolutely chockablock full of armies that either are by nature or can flexibly become super durability skewed.
Harlequins had access to exactly the same offensive capabilities they do right now prior to their PA update. The ability to deploy defensively around a shadowseer and use stratagems that allow them to take a hit should they lose first turn is one factor that took them from middle to low tier to uber high-tier competitively.
That, and the whole meta being defined by Sv and AP, two stats that they absolutely scoff at, anyway.
This isn't a universal truth at all. You can usually see them with some of your army.
There are secondaries, too. They account for a not insignificant portion of the score.
^this. All you need to do to hide a unit out of line of sight is prevent an optimal targeting from your opponent. Trying to hide everything from everything is almost always a total impossibility, and if you can you're probably playing some kind of hyper-skew null deploy list or you've got a super wacky terrain setup.
I think Harlequins also benefited from a bit of points inflation across other armies in the jump to 9th. If Troupes were say 2 more points a model and there was 5-10 points on Starweavers it would quickly add up. This grows less meaningful as the codexes are updated, but still.
Really though, a GSC player tired of Ridgerunners is a GSC player tired of life.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm not responding to this idiotic "tactics don't exist" canard, in my eyes it's pretty much over when you've got someone who's worked for an actual armed forces organization saying "no, your definition of tactics vs strategy is not correct here folks."
Ehhh, to be fair theres a lot of discourse in modern western armed forces (especially within the US) about how professional military leadership has generally failed to properly understand strategy and operational art, and how often even senior military leaders who should know better will mistake tactical, logistical, and operational planning with strategic planning. The fact that the guy has a military pedigree doesn't automatically make him correct given the context in which strategic thinking within numerous military organizations is seen as having atrophied.
More directly, his military service is largely irrelevant within the context of tabletop toy soldiers where terms like "strategy" and "tactics" mean things pretty different from actual military operations and planning.
It's also important to note that killing is short hand for the thing I was talking about earlier in measuring your dice pools.
What you are trying to actually do is keep your effective dice pool value up and their effective dice pool value down. The most direct way to do that is to kill and remove models. But things like tri pointing in 8th removed vehicles and their dice without having to go through all the trouble of killing them.
The Spartans strategy of holding a pass where they could limit the number of Persians they would have to fight at any given time was very effective at allowing the tactic of the Phalanx formation to keep the soldiers doing the fighting alive.
The strategy forced the enemy to face them on their terms. The tactics is how they kept winning the fights.
Lance is on fire.
I about broke my exalt button..l
The Spartans strategy of holding a pass where they could limit the number of Persians they would have to fight at any given time was very effective at allowing the tactic of the Phalanx formation to keep the soldiers doing the fighting alive.
The strategy forced the enemy to face them on their terms. The tactics is how they kept winning the fights.
Lance is on fire.
I about broke my exalt button..l
"Spartan tactics were so shallow. All they did was stand there with shields and spears and target valuable units."
Not Online!!! wrote: i think the smaller boards and less significant rules interaction between side and front (f.e. Armor) has significantly lowered tactical interaction imo.
The Spartans strategy of holding a pass where they could limit the number of Persians they would have to fight at any given time was very effective at allowing the tactic of the Phalanx formation to keep the soldiers doing the fighting alive.
The strategy forced the enemy to face them on their terms. The tactics is how they kept winning the fights.
Lance is on fire.
I about broke my exalt button..l
"Spartan tactics were so shallow. All they did was stand there with shields and spears and target valuable units."
- Xerxes
Nah. They followed the most important rule. They brought OP units.
The Spartans strategy of holding a pass where they could limit the number of Persians they would have to fight at any given time was very effective at allowing the tactic of the Phalanx formation to keep the soldiers doing the fighting alive.
The strategy forced the enemy to face them on their terms. The tactics is how they kept winning the fights.
Lance is on fire.
I about broke my exalt button..l
"Spartan tactics were so shallow. All they did was stand there with shields and spears and target valuable units."
- Xerxes
If you step away from the thread and come in with fresh eyes you might see something sensible. Until then you mock I guess... still a blistering exchange. Lance’s distinction between strategy and tactics is useful and clear. His example of Spartans to clarify this distinction was also clear.
The Spartans strategy of holding a pass where they could limit the number of Persians they would have to fight at any given time was very effective at allowing the tactic of the Phalanx formation to keep the soldiers doing the fighting alive.
The strategy forced the enemy to face them on their terms. The tactics is how they kept winning the fights.
Lance is on fire.
I about broke my exalt button..l
"Spartan tactics were so shallow. All they did was stand there with shields and spears and target valuable units."
- Xerxes
Nah. They followed the most important rule. They brought OP units.
This isn't a universal truth at all. You can usually see them with some of your army.
There are secondaries, too. They account for a not insignificant portion of the score.
There is literally a rule. That objectives can not be within terrain. For the majority of the scenarios the objectives are in the middle of the table.
1) 3" to hold
2) being on or near an objective doesn't make you visible to the whole table.
OFC. But it is part of target priority. Targeting units on objectives is part of target priority as well. If you cant target the units on the objective you are failing a basic rule. Follow in this order to win max games.
1. Kill their best units
2. Kill units while taking objectives (this includes taking objectives from them)
3. Stop them from killing your units.
It is this simple.
Take stronger units and it becomes simpler.
It seemed that you were clarifying the OP’s concern, emphasizing that we might expect little tactical discussion when, as the OP recognizes, and other posters confirm, off table pre game “planning” ends up being the subject when people try to answer questions like “ why did my dudes lose..?”
I WISH 40k had more tactics in it. I have more or less spent a couple years in the proposed rules section talking about the benefits of ditching some of 40ks old conventions to do just that.
It just doesn't. The game as is just doesn't have them. What little it does have is so simplistic. It's all strategy and logistics.
I wish people didn't take me saying that as an attack.
If you step away from the thread and come in with fresh eyes you might see something sensible. Until then you mock I guess... still a blistering exchange. Lance’s distinction between strategy and tactics is useful and clear. His example of Spartans to clarify this distinction was also clear.
Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong despite what they say and I'll cling on to random posts that have no bearing on the actual discussion to prove it!
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
This is only true in the context of 40k as is where the only metrics you can use to change things is movement and range profiles.
There are other games with other factors in play. There are versions of 40k with other factors in play. Alternating Activations gives players a rich depth of tactical decision making. Which unit do you activate? To what effect? Trying to predict how the opponent will react to whatever you do and turn that into an advantage. There is the potential for REALLY deep tactical decision making in a TT wargame. It will NEVER happen with the turn structure we have.
Not Online!!! wrote: i think the smaller boards and less significant rules interaction between side and front (f.e. Armor) has significantly lowered tactical interaction imo.
This^^
it's just something that occured to me when i was forced by gw to switch from R&H into GSC to count as R&H.
Whenever i use the GSC rules on a bigger table, i have a lot more issues manouvering, not because i am at a disadvantage being GSC but rather because opportunity cost becomes really high.
Infact bigger tables make opportunity cost for footslogging higher in csm, meaning that i consider on occaison to bring a rhino for the added tactical flexibility and protection.
on smaller tables, why bother with a transport?
Literally any movement shenanigan allows me to cover more then enough space. Yes manouvre is still relevant, but the natural advantage a GSC army should have is basically baseline neutered on it.
Meanwhile my CSM in essence don't need anything other then warptime or a stratagem and i can bury my berzerkers in someones units without issues.
The missions still seem to lack kind of interaction (secondaries that is) and contrary seem arbitrarily unfair (still) to some factions.
Auras also didn't resolve moshpiting. Contrary they encouraged it. so why bother with interesting manouvre when it's more effective to blob up. Something in the past you'd only have done against stuff like deldar bike list that wanted to eat you piecemeal.
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
This is only true in the context of 40k as is where the only metrics you can use to change things is movement and range profiles.
There are other games with other factors in play. There are versions of 40k with other factors in play. Alternating Activations gives players a rich depth of tactical decision making. Which unit do you activate? To what effect? Trying to predict how the opponent will react to whatever you do and turn that into an advantage. There is the potential for REALLY deep tactical decision making in a TT wargame. It will NEVER happen with the turn structure we have.
There's the XKCD comic where people see that there's 8 different standards so they create a unifying standard and suddenly they have 9 competing standards. My point? If you want 40k to work a certain way I think you need to do the leadership thing and forge ahead. Write up your rules, develop them, do lots of videos about them, get local players to use them, that sort of thing. At least I'm hoping it works that way, as I agree with you that alternating actions leads to more interesting games.
I WISH 40k had more tactics in it. I have more or less spent a couple years in the proposed rules section talking about the benefits of ditching some of 40ks old conventions to do just that.
It just doesn't. The game as is just doesn't have them. What little it does have is so simplistic. It's all strategy and logistics.
I wish people didn't take me saying that as an attack.
I'll respond in reverse order....
(1) I'm not taking it as an attack on the game. Others have mentioned that army list + deployment is maybe 60% of the game, another 30% luck, and only 10% the table-level decisions. I agree with that for the most part, with the caveat that the remaining 10% can lead to some catastrophic fails on occasion, and that while most of the decisions are relatively straightforward, they still matter and they still constitute "a decision."
(2) There have been quite a number of posts clearly showing that there ARE tactical decisions to make. These include:
- Links to goonhammer tactics articles clearly showing very specific concepts for managing models, movement, etc.
- Personal stories / battlereports clearly showing tactical choice tradeoff situations that people were grappling to sort through
You asked for evidence, people gave it, and you just continued to hand wave it all away as "not tactics." Why don't you provide an example, from a different game, of what you think tactics in a miniature game are?
(3) I wish 40K had MORE tactics in at well. And as you may know, that's been the driving force behind development of ProHammer (for classic 40k editions). Stopping short of a full rework of turn order (AA, etc.) we've done a lot to bolster reaction options, add more decision points and trade-offs, rework missions and objectives to create more tactical space and opportunity for other approaches, lots of other stuff.
I'm hoping eventually to make a ProHammer version of 9th edition (but that's a long ways off).
LOS blocking, roadblocking a lane, or movement to make it deeper into their territory faster.
Auras also didn't resolve moshpiting. Contrary they encouraged it. so why bother with interesting manouvre when it's more effective to blob up. Something in the past you'd only have done against stuff like deldar bike list that wanted to eat you piecemeal.
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.
LOS blocking, roadblocking a lane, or movement to make it deeper into their territory faster.
Auras also didn't resolve moshpiting. Contrary they encouraged it. so why bother with interesting manouvre when it's more effective to blob up. Something in the past you'd only have done against stuff like deldar bike list that wanted to eat you piecemeal.
Disagree strongly.
You can disagree all you want , the removal of templates and encouragement of blobbing via aura has not improved the Game in an on Tablet tactics manner.
And los blocking with Transport is an excercise in futility with the at nowadays found in an average list.
LOS blocking, roadblocking a lane, or movement to make it deeper into their territory faster.
Auras also didn't resolve moshpiting. Contrary they encouraged it. so why bother with interesting manouvre when it's more effective to blob up. Something in the past you'd only have done against stuff like deldar bike list that wanted to eat you piecemeal.
Disagree strongly.
You can disagree all you want , the removal of templates and encouragement of blobbing via aura has not improved the Game in an on Tablet tactics manner.
And los blocking with Transport is an exercise in futility with the at nowadays found in an average list.
Totally agree. Auras are bad for the game. However mobility is typically undervalued in points and so auras kind of keep that in check. I'd be happy with both issues being fixed. Buffs should only be single target and speed needs to have a proper cost.
Nurglitch wrote: If you want 40k to work a certain way I think you need to do the leadership thing and forge ahead. Write up your rules, develop them, do lots of videos about them, get local players to use them, that sort of thing. At least I'm hoping it works that way, as I agree with you that alternating actions leads to more interesting games.
In fairness, there's a million wargames which all do tactical decisions better than 40k. There's no need to create a new system.
On another note; not only have recent rules for 40k reduced table size they have substantially increased mobility.
A unit can now move and fire heavy weapons at only minor penalty, they can move and fire rapid fire weapons with no penalty, they can shoot and charge, assault weapons (very common) allow you to advance and fire at minor penalty, there are many rules which allow you to advance and fire at full efficiency, or even charge!
When I started playing, in 5th edition, you couldn't fire heavy weapons if you moved, at all. If you moved, you could only fire rapid fire weapons at half range. If you fired heavy weapons, rapid fire weapons, or advanced you wouldn't be able to charge.
Not to mention changes in the reliability of deepstrike.
The difference in that is stark.
Mezmorki wrote: I agree with that for the most part, with the caveat that the remaining 10% can lead to some catastrophic fails on occasion, and that while most of the decisions are relatively straightforward, they still matter and they still constitute "a decision."
(2) There have been quite a number of posts clearly showing that there ARE tactical decisions to make. These include: - Links to goonhammer tactics articles clearly showing very specific concepts for managing models, movement, etc. - Personal stories / battlereports clearly showing tactical choice tradeoff situations that people were grappling to sort through
You asked for evidence, people gave it, and you just continued to hand wave it all away as "not tactics." Why don't you provide an example, from a different game, of what you think tactics in a miniature game are?
This is the part we disagree on and so I am going to elaborate on the words I am using and the context in which I am using them so that maybe I can clear things up.
There is a concept in game design called the illusion of choice. It happens when you purposefully or unintentionally present the players with any kind of decision in which there are clearly correct answers and clearly incorrect answers. Or advantages and disadvantages. Or anything where one answer is "right" and the others are "wrong".
This can take a lot of forms.
I gave the metaphor before of a choose your own adventure book where you turn the page and find out you died. There is no actual choice there. Just the illusion of choice. The game doesn't continue. It's over.
When World of Warcraft changed from their talent trees to their very limited fixed choices at certain levels it was talked about how many options in every tree were actually the illusion of choice because only a couple builds were actually viable in the game and many talents were never taken because they were in fact the wrong choice.
It also happens when you fill a room with clearly superior weapons and clearly inferior weapons. I am not talking about better or worse in different situations or different pros and cons. But instead of actual factual worse and superior. In 40k termagants could have the flesh borer, the strangle web, or the spike rifle and while the rifle and FB were basically the same gun with slight trade offs the strangle web was just PURE garbage. It LITERALLY did nothing. Sticking it on the datasheet is the illusion of choice. (40k is fething choked full of illusion of choice war gear btw and even illusion of choice units.)
So when I tell you that that "tactical decision" isn't really a decision I am talking about in terms of game design and specifically within the context of the illusion of choice. You COULD move your unit anywhere from 0-6" in literally 360 degree directions. You can even get some vertical distance in there with the right terrain. But just because you have nigh infinite choices doesn't mean you have anything other then 1 optimal choice and the rest are non choice sub par options. This isn't a fault of you, or me being a super genius computer, or any of that other nonsense. It's a fact born out of the interaction of the various mechanics that make up the game. A major contributing factor to that is the turn structure, but other elements play a part too.
The end result is that your strategy dictates the general direction/goal all your units should be moving in/towards and your "tactics" is working out what the single most optimal path to that at any single decision is (I.E. it's understanding the logistics of the game mechanics and the current game state). And despite the turn being broken into 4 phases it really isn't. It's just you doing everything all at once.
You can say you are making a decision. And on a surface level that's true. But you only have 1 choice. And you either make it or don't. Thats why the game is tactically shallow. Thats why we are saying it's just a flow chart and math. Thats why I have said you don't actually play against the opponent. You play against the math of the game and the law of averages.
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.
What's this nonsense? 'Melee players' (whoever that mythical group is supposed to include) didn't influence squat, let alone make this happen. GW's new default board size took everyone* by surprise and there's no rhyme or reason to it.
*almost everyone. Some of the playtest groups obviously knew and the predatory gangs like Frontline were certainly posed to sell new gaming mats early. Its certainly easier to 'fill up' the board with the handful of terrain pieces in tournaments at this size (but still doesn't really fix the Planet Bowling Ball problem). Why not blame them if you're going to randomly accuse people that aren't GW for changes to GW rules?
This is the part we disagree on and so I am going to elaborate on the words I am using and the context in which I am using them so that maybe I can clear things up.
There is a concept in game design called the illusion of choice. It happens when you purposefully or unintentionally present the players with any kind of decision in which there are clearly correct answers and clearly incorrect answers. Or advantages and disadvantages. Or anything where one answer is "right" and the others are "wrong".
Do you offer comprehensive workshops on what is "right" and "wrong" for 40K players? I'd love to be able to do all the math beforehand and win before ever making a decision.
What those goonhammer articles are doing is spelling out the variables in the equation and showing you the answers.
The goons have an article on tripointing too. But once you understand the concept it's not a question any more. You have the answer to the equation. If you can tri point then you tri point. To be able to and not is choosing wrong and you will suffer for it.
By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.
Mezmorki wrote: By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.
Yes, this is exactly what we've been saying. Just because any given lump of electrified fat can't solve the problem doesn't mean it's a complex problem, it just makes it a problem that requires a certain amount of computational power (or a lot of time) to solve. When you get right down to it Chess, Go, and 40k are games that have as little complexity as solving pi to x places.
Games like Infinity, MtG, even Yu-Gi-Oh are leagues beyond 40k in terms of complexity and the reason is hidden information. In 40k there is no hidden information as even dice rolls will fall along a known probability curve.
Mezmorki wrote: By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.
No.
We went over the chess thing before.
The difference between chess and 40k is that in chess you are actually playing against your opponent. When I move a piece moving that piece impacts my opponent in a way that represents so much more than it does in 40k. I can place my queen or bishop or knight in a vulnerable place as bait and then pounce on the opponent when they fall for it. There is a LOT of tactical depth in chess because it's nothing but you interacting with your opponent. There is room in chess for long term planning. 10 moves down the line and playing the opponent into your strategies using your tactics. There are no 10 moves in 40k. You're lucky if you get 4 before one player is so obviously the winner you might as well end the game then and there.
A computer can solve it, yes. But it does so in part through brute force computation and in part by making sure it doesn't make moves that gain no advantage. It can't fall for a ploy because it can calculate ahead so it's impossible to put the computer in a no win situation.
There are no ploys in 40k. You just march your strategy forward as efficiently as you can. There are books after books after book on chess opening, mid games, and end games. How they interact. The pros and cons of each. The gambits they represent. There is a LOT of you making tactical decisions in chess. There just isn't in 40k. Again, I wish there was, but there just isn't. There will never be a book on 40k "tactics" with the breadth of content of even a single professional chess book because there just isn't enough content to fill it.
Mezmorki wrote: By your logic, would would you say that Chess being a "solved game" (by advanced AI's) means that is it no longer a tactical game for ordinary humans? I feel like you are saying that "40K is a solved game" (or even that it is conceptually "solvable") and therefore has no "real choice" within it.
Yes, this is exactly what we've been saying. Just because any given lump of electrified fat can't solve the problem doesn't mean it's a complex problem, it just makes it a problem that requires a certain amount of computational power (or a lot of time) to solve. When you get right down to it Chess, Go, and 40k are games that have as little complexity as solving pi to x places.
Games like Infinity, MtG, even Yu-Gi-Oh are leagues beyond 40k in terms of complexity and the reason is hidden information. In 40k there is no hidden information as even dice rolls will fall along a known probability curve.
I understand your position on this. But where I draw the line is the interaction with my opponent. Chess has tactical decision making because it's a move you make not against the pieces or the game but the opponent. 40k isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lets put it this way. You have about as many "turns" in a game of 40k as you do in a game of tic tac toe. How much depth can you squeeze out of that?
Lance845 wrote: I understand your position on this. But where I draw the line is the interaction with my opponent. Chess has tactical decision making because it's a move you make not against the pieces or the game but the opponent. 40k isn't.
Likewise, I understand your point. I just feel that any game as solved as Chess is shouldn't be counted as a complex game. A game of Chess played optimally has a fixed outcome of white winning in a fixed unchanging series of moves. 40k at least has the variables of terrain and armies to spice things up but they're just more math and not any real complexity.
Not Online!!! wrote: You can disagree all you want , the removal of templates and encouragement of blobbing via aura has not improved the Game in an on Tablet tactics manner.
And los blocking with Transport is an excercise in futility with the at nowadays found in an average list.
I have the feeling that you haven't played lately. I have that feeling towards quite a few people in this thread actually...
Here's a question for you: what game in your view can't be reduced to a series of optimal non-tactical moves given sufficient time to math an optimal solution?
These are 3 games on my book shelf that incorporate both strategy and tactics that i doubt could be boiled down to flow charts and math. There is too much player to player interaction.
Mmm, not sure if the comparison to TTT can be made. So much happens in those 5 turns. Many movements, actions, attacks and choices that to reduce it down to a flowchart or just a mathematical equation feels like actively trying to simplify something that will not be simplified effectively.
I've lost encounters by the smallest of margins, a unit moved a little to far or not enough. Choosing to target one thing that was in my face when the target further back was the real threat. Yeah things like dice swinging one way or another is always a factor and often a good plan can fall to tatters due to bad luck. To say nothing about terrain and odd lines of sight. But adapting to that is what has kept 40K engaging for me up to this point.
Yeah creating a decent list is great. But depending on other factors such as my opponents choices and the terrain that great list may not be able to function at full efficiency.
Mezmorki wrote: Here's a question for you: what game in your view can't be reduced to a series of optimal non-tactical moves given sufficient time to math an optimal solution?
Any TCG where you don't know the state of your opponent's hand and where balance is close enough for more than one deck to have the potential to be optimal is almost certainly unsolvable. MtG is Turning complete and while that doesn't translate into its gameplay it can literally be used to solve Chess/Go/40k.
Euro-style board games like Catan or Lords of Waterdeep are equally unsolvable due to hidden information, player interaction, and the way each turn is a series of small steps with multiple possible outcomes.
Computer games like League of Legends are questionably solvable. There could be a meta state where the draft is perfectly solved and AI can play each champion to a degree where any imbalance ensures that one team will always win, but the hidden information, ability to ban champions, and the ability for counterplay likely makes it unsolvable.
40k is just a simple puzzle game next to the above list.
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.
again, pointing out, not to xeno because I know you're really just not interested in listening, but the competitive harlequin setup does generally involve arming the harlequins with EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE GUN UPGRADE, running them in the shootiest masque, and if you can help it, staying inside your transports and shooting out of them.
Not exactly the indictment about how those horrible horrible melee players have ruined the sanctity of your guns simulator.
These are 3 games on my book shelf that incorporate both strategy and tactics that i doubt could be boiled down to flow charts and math. There is too much player to player interaction.
There's too much player to player interaction in...terraforming mars, as opposed to a head to head wargame?
Besides building your gak on the same map and occasionally hocking asteroids at eachother, terraforming mars is DAMN close to a competitive solitaire eurogame.
Any TCG where you don't know the state of your opponent's hand and where balance is close enough for more than one deck to have the potential to be optimal is almost certainly unsolvable. MtG is Turning complete and while that doesn't translate into its gameplay it can literally be used to solve Chess/Go/40k.
Except that so many decks rely on landing the pieces you need and the level of interaction boils down to whether they can block enough and get their combo out before yours. My favorite - the ruin crab!
T1 crab
T2 crab, play fetch, crack fetch, play crab
T3 play crab, play fetch, play glimpse.
40 cards milled by turn 3
Daedalus81 wrote: Except that so many decks rely on landing the pieces you need and the level of interaction boils down to whether they can block enough and get their combo out before yours. My favorite - the ruin crab!
T1 crab
T2 crab, play fetch, crack fetch, play crab
T3 play crab, play fetch, play glimpse.
40 cards milled by turn 3
That's just one format. How about French, Pauper, EDH, Modern, Vintage, Legacy, Draft, Sealed, Two-Headed Giant, Planeschase, Pioneer, etc. all in potentially Bo3 and Bo1 formats.
Just because one format can feel solved doesn't mean that the game itself is solved or even solvable.
Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.
If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.
Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.
the_scotsman wrote: There's too much player to player interaction in...terraforming mars, as opposed to a head to head wargame?
Besides building your gak on the same map and occasionally hocking asteroids at eachother, terraforming mars is DAMN close to a competitive solitaire eurogame.
The fact that you think competitive solitaire is a valid way to describe Terraforming Mars shows that you have zero clue what you're talking about either due to your own lack of skill or due to a lack of experience with the game. With just the base game the entire game is about reading what your opponents are going to do and planning your tempo around that. If you play with drafting on you then also have to balance picking for your own strategy versus cutting key parts of what your opponents are going for. Toss in the awards, the way your play interacts with other cards (Predators is straightforward, Pets is a bit less so, Monorails is even less clear) and you get an extremely deep game.
The issue here, I suspect, is that scottsman thinks interacting with your opponents pieces is the same thing as interacting with your opponent.
It's easy for someone who sees things that way to think 40k has a ton of player interaction while something like Terraforming Mars does not.
But it's the opposite thats true. 40k is a game where all you do is interact with pieces. The opponent has almost no say in anything you do. While TM's action economy and resource management means in order to play well you have no choice but to interact with them on basically every level. You have to plan your moves based on what you think their moves might be. Do something too soon and you could be handing them an advantage. Act too late and they may take something out from under you. You need to prioritize not just what you can do but based around what they can do.
It's the difference between playing against the game and playing against the opponent that I have been banging on about.
Lance845 wrote: Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.
If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.
Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.
That is still 100% mathematically solvable though. You can always run an alghoritm to find the "optimal choice", even when you need to interact with the opponent.
All games are mathematically solvable.
I played bridge at international level. That is a game where you need to play with the unknown factor of what your 2 opponents will do, AND the unknown factor of what your team mate will do!
And yet let me tell you that almost all of it is running percentages in your head.
Lance845 wrote: Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.
If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.
Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.
That is still 100% mathematically solvable though.
You can always run an alghoritm to find the "optimal choice", even when you need to interact with the opponent.
All games are mathematically solvable.
I played bridge at international level. That is a game where you need to play with the unknown factor of what your 2 opponents will do, AND the unknown factor of what your team mate will do!
And yet let me tell you that almost all of it is running percentages in your head.
Bridge has far fewer conditions on when you can and should play your cards. Terraforming Mars has a cost, possible additional requirements, a game board, rewards which often vary by game state, groups of 2 actions per round leading to complexity of when to take an action within a round, actions granted by cards, fixed cost actions , interactions between cards, an every filling track for O2 and heat which both ends the game and allows or disallows cards to be played. Bridge is checkers to this game's chess.
Lance845 wrote: Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.
If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.
Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.
That is still 100% mathematically solvable though.
You can always run an alghoritm to find the "optimal choice", even when you need to interact with the opponent.
All games are mathematically solvable.
I played bridge at international level. That is a game where you need to play with the unknown factor of what your 2 opponents will do, AND the unknown factor of what your team mate will do!
And yet let me tell you that almost all of it is running percentages in your head.
Bridge has far fewer conditions on when you can and should play your cards. Terraforming Mars has a cost, possible additional requirements, a game board, rewards which often vary by game state, groups of 2 actions per round leading to complexity of when to take an action within a round, actions granted by cards, fixed cost actions , interactions between cards, an every filling track for O2 and heat which both ends the game and allows or disallows cards to be played. Bridge is checkers to this game's chess.
Having many variables doesn't make it not solvable.
Mezmorki wrote: Here's a question for you: what game in your view can't be reduced to a series of optimal non-tactical moves given sufficient time to math an optimal solution?
Putting aside the fact this has been answered already (from the wargaming side I'd add almost any sufficiently complex game using AA due to player-player interaction) this question misses the point. The question isn't whether a game is solved or not, it's whether it's sufficiently complex that two human beings playing the game can't mathematically solve it themselves in the time given. Tic-tac-toe, is trivially solvable for humans. Chess is not, which is why humans continue to play it even though chess engines have been able to beat humans for decades.
The point people are making about 40k is that its tactical complexity is more towards the tic-tac-toe end of the spectrum than the chess end of the spectrum as the optimum moves are often not difficult for players to determine. That's why you can have really deep, extensive discussion about the tactics of chess games while the same can't be said about 40k, as evidenced by this thread and the lack of such discussion elsewhere.
I think the problem with this discussion is that one side is arguing that tactics is zero.
I think this is objectively false.
Why does a move being determinably optimal mean it's not a valid decision for the player? Literally the whole point of a game is to enact what you think is the optimal play to win.
Noughts and Crosses may have minimal tactical interplay, but it's there.
40k definitely has more tactical interplay than that, I can't imagine that's actually up for the debate.
So arguing that 40k has zero tactics just seems stupid to me. I don't think 40k is the most tactically deep game on the market, far from it, but it's not a trivial solution. Otherwise, why isn't it the same list winning every tournament?
If 40k was so easy to solve, why isn't the hardcore tournament community solving their games?
kirotheavenger wrote: I think the problem with this discussion is that one side is arguing that tactics is zero.
And I think you're wrong. I don't think anyone has said 40k has literally zero tactics and it would be helpful if people would stop building that strawman. What people have said is the tactics in 40k are not so complex and deep that they require extensive analysis like in other games. Ultimately they boil down to fairly simple principles or extremely specific scenarios that are unlikely to be repeatable.
The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.
Not Online!!! wrote: You can disagree all you want , the removal of templates and encouragement of blobbing via aura has not improved the Game in an on Tablet tactics manner.
And los blocking with Transport is an excercise in futility with the at nowadays found in an average list.
I have the feeling that you haven't played lately. I have that feeling towards quite a few people in this thread actually...
Au contraire it could also be that my local strategical meta still is behind in some manners or that knights are really liked still.
And you haven't disputed anything other than proclaimed that you disagree.
Fine, show me the possible tactical interesting interaction on a small nu gw standard table tm with gw plates tm with no interactivity encouraged beyond sit on objective more or less because there's no weakpoint to tanks f.e. anymore so no reward for potentially exposing an AT unit to get a clear shot.
Name one change that increased tactical complexity and onfield decision making since 8th or 9th.
Tactics is what you use at the table level. How you react to different situations in hopes of accomplishing certain goals. "I am going to place this unit here to try and bait that unit into moving into x position"
Strategy is your broad strokes over all plan before the game begins. Thats your list building and even your deployment.
"These units will sit in the back to protect my deployment zone and provide fire support while x,y,z will blitz into the enemy lines to stir things up".
40k basically has no tactics. It's all strategy. And that is why it's difficult to discuss and why almost all of the conversation revolves around list building.
In order to have any meaningful tactics the players have to be able to interact with each other in meaningful ways. But 99.9% of the time your strategy is your best bet with a singular clear obvious thing for you to do. And thats mostly remove enemy models as quickly as possible so they have less models to shoot back at you on the next turn. You feed them unfavorable targets if you can. You shoot your principle targets if you can. You tie up x unit if you can.
The game has no tactical depth. Thats the problem.
It seems to me that people absolutely are making the argument that 40k has essentially zero tactics.
Your point about X-wing discussions is interesting. I wonder how a similar discussion for 40k would play out.
Slipspace wrote: The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.
You can make tactical threads about x-wing because you can limit the scenario to half a dozen models.
You can do chess quizzes only when discussing about a similar amount of pieces. Surely not with a full board for each player.
You can discuss what to do with 2-3 units in 40K too, but it has no meaning, because small scale tactics in 40K are close to nill. If what Lance means by saying that there are no tactics, actually means that there are no SMALL SCALE tactics, then I can agree. Once you have committed certain forces to a certain scenario, you can only alter the outcome from outside the scenario or alter someone else's scenario.
On the other hand, 40K has a big focus on large scale tactics. Where the skill of the player really shows is in how they manage the interactions between the scenarios on the battlefields. Where to retreat, where to fight, where to send reinforcements... army level maneuvers, not unit level.
Now, you can also discard all that kind of thinking and go for a one trick pony list like Lance's nid list. You have a sound plan and put all your effort toward it. No flexibility, only efficency. It either works and you win, or it fails and you lose.
That's one way to play, but surely not the only one... nor the most competitive one.
Tactics is what you use at the table level. How you react to different situations in hopes of accomplishing certain goals. "I am going to place this unit here to try and bait that unit into moving into x position"
Strategy is your broad strokes over all plan before the game begins. Thats your list building and even your deployment.
"These units will sit in the back to protect my deployment zone and provide fire support while x,y,z will blitz into the enemy lines to stir things up".
40k basically has no tactics. It's all strategy. And that is why it's difficult to discuss and why almost all of the conversation revolves around list building.
In order to have any meaningful tactics the players have to be able to interact with each other in meaningful ways. But 99.9% of the time your strategy is your best bet with a singular clear obvious thing for you to do. And thats mostly remove enemy models as quickly as possible so they have less models to shoot back at you on the next turn. You feed them unfavorable targets if you can. You shoot your principle targets if you can. You tie up x unit if you can.
The game has no tactical depth. Thats the problem.
It seems to me that people absolutely are making the argument that 40k has essentially zero tactics.
I disagree with Lance's terminology but even with that said you'll notice his point is a bit more nuanced as he talks about "no tactical depth". Even his first statement about tactics being what you do on the tabletop would imply tactics exist. All that said, the majority of people are certainly not arguing for no tactics in 40k so if you want to believe they are maybe take it up via PM with Lance.
Your point about X-wing discussions is interesting. I wonder how a similar discussion for 40k would play out.
That's my point. I think it's very telling nobody has really done it yet. That should tell you something.
I don't think 40k handles army level maneuvers, at all.
The speed of units, range of weapons, and size of board means that a unit can relatively easily threaten pretty much the entire board on any given turn.
Even melee units can consistently move across a significant portion of the board.
I don't think 40k handles small unit tactics well, but they're there, and they're all it has.
Range as an absolute value is long, but in practical terms shooting from one area of the map to another is usually not possible, assuming regular amounts of terrain elements.
There are units with high speeds, but those are usually costly and frail. They are surely there, and you need them to correctly respond to the flows of the game.
Foot slogging units though, cannot. And the game right now is heavy on footslogging.
Vehicles too have very limited redeploy capabilities. You have to set them up on the fire lanes anticipating your opponent's moves.
As other have said, 40K can be easily lost in the deployment phase. That's because once the game starts, changing which units you have committed to which tasks, takes effort.
When talking about how a game went with your opponent, the reasons for losing are usually the following ones:
- I should have deployed x unit on that side
- I should have sent this unit on the point earlier
- I should have waited one more turn before advancing this unit.
- I should have kept this unit in reserve.
Sometimes the reason is dice dictated:
- I failed all my charges
- I failed all my powers
And stuff like that. Sometimes the dice just betray you.
Very rarely the reason is:
- I can't win with this list against your list
It happens that the matchup is simply bad for one list, but is rare. Usually when someone says that, he is just a sore loser.
Barring cases like that or cases of extremely cold dices, games are lost in the movement phase.
The game is heavy on footslogging because players feel no need to invest in greater mobility/the price of that mobility is inefficient.
In fact I find your examples very much reinforcing the idea that 40k is not an army level game.
You talked about where to send reinforcements. If you can't send reinforcements because they're too slow, that's not a factor.
That's my point. I think it's very telling nobody has really done it yet. That should tell you something.
I've never seen such a discussion in any wargames I've played, I don't think it's a huge red flag that 40k is lacking.
I think it's more a sign of what communities engage with the game about. 40k players generally aren't those seeking high tactical depth in games. They're those seeking players to play with regularly, cool models to collect, etc. Hence the largest and most recurring discussions on 40k boards are in regards to who gets what models and when.
It's almost like, theres some kind of distinction between a board game, which is designed for players to not do much prep and generally by the nature of the game presents a somewhat randomized experience to the player, and a wargame where you construct, paint, and customize your entire force that tends to lead players to want a lot of the game to revolve around pre-planning.
Im not certain but im fairly sure that were you to assign point values to chess pieces and allow the player to deploy as they like, youd remove almost all of the tactical depth from chess as you added in that strategic layer.
kirotheavenger wrote: The game is heavy on footslogging because players feel no need to invest in greater mobility/the price of that mobility is inefficient.
In fact I find your examples very much reinforcing the idea that 40k is not an army level game.
You talked about where to send reinforcements. If you can't send reinforcements because they're too slow, that's not a factor.
So is 40k more or less of an army level game if units can threaten most things on the board in a given turn - or if they can't?
I just think you don't see these Chess-style scenarios because they are difficult to describe (although again, we had one on page 2.)
It would be quite a bit of work to draw up a map of a 40k game at a specific point. "How would you play out your 5 turns" is a bit of a big ask.
But lets go back to GSC as they were the example. Consider "GSC Patriarchs".
Should you have one in your list? I've argued no in the past - lets break the tyranny of the Broodcoven stratagem - but yes, you probably should because its not clear what you are using the points/CP on otherwise. (Perhaps especially given multiple detachments cost CP rather than gaining them.)
If you are going to take one, how should you use him? Is he a one-way missile? Or should you hold him back to try and maximise value over the game? If you think there is no discussion to be had on this, then okay maybe 40k is a really superficial shallow game but I can't agree. I feel I've played a lot and watched a lot and its not obvious to me. (Perhaps implied - I find he's often underwhelming, hence the aim to build lists without one, but unfortunately I don't think that really works.)
If you are going to take one, how should you use him? Is he a one-way missile? Or should you hold him back to try and maximise value over the game? If you think there is no discussion to be had on this, then okay maybe 40k is a really superficial shallow game but I can't agree. I feel I've played a lot and watched a lot and its not obvious to me. (Perhaps implied - I find he's often underwhelming, hence the aim to build lists without one, but unfortunately I don't think that really works.)
I totally agree with you on this, these are the tactics present in 40k at the minute.
The fact that you generally plan out ahead of time that you're going to use him aggressively or conservatively doesn't change the fact that it's a decision executed on the tabletop.
I do sympathise with people saying that tactics are very shallow. I'm only disagreeing with the idea that tactics are negligible or completely trivial.
Nurglitch wrote: If you want 40k to work a certain way I think you need to do the leadership thing and forge ahead. Write up your rules, develop them, do lots of videos about them, get local players to use them, that sort of thing. At least I'm hoping it works that way, as I agree with you that alternating actions leads to more interesting games.
In fairness, there's a million wargames which all do tactical decisions better than 40k. There's no need to create a new system.
Not many of those wargames cover the GW model range though, and if they were usable by 40k players they would be used. So there needs to be a new system, although maybe it's less of an issue about which particular system and moreso about who would develop and officiate such as system.
If 40k was so easy to solve, why isn't the hardcore tournament community solving their games?
They....kinda did already. Outside the shills writing articles for GW and getting paid for it, there's not exactly a ton of variance for units being ran or anything in the actual topping lists.
Plus the true solving of games is pretty hard with GW creating rules bloat and needing errata + FAQ with literally every single release.
I WISH 40k had more tactics in it. I have more or less spent a couple years in the proposed rules section talking about the benefits of ditching some of 40ks old conventions to do just that.
It just doesn't. The game as is just doesn't have them. What little it does have is so simplistic. It's all strategy and logistics.
I wish people didn't take me saying that as an attack.
Sunk cost fallacy thinking. If a game with 40k's rules were released today without the strong IP to back it up, we would laugh at it. What we have instead is people defending it and GW's practices...because.
People here don't really think about that and it shows.
Nurglitch wrote: If you want 40k to work a certain way I think you need to do the leadership thing and forge ahead. Write up your rules, develop them, do lots of videos about them, get local players to use them, that sort of thing. At least I'm hoping it works that way, as I agree with you that alternating actions leads to more interesting games.
In fairness, there's a million wargames which all do tactical decisions better than 40k. There's no need to create a new system.
Not many of those wargames cover the GW model range though, and if they were usable by 40k players they would be used. So there needs to be a new system, although maybe it's less of an issue about which particular system and moreso about who would develop and officiate such as system.
As you'll find from playing alternative systems, just adding in whatever your personal rules bugbear into the framework of 40k and trying to make it balanced isn't actually all that easy.
Recently, out of curiosity a friend of mine and I tried out Grimdark Future, purported to be "use your 40k minis for a game that's actually GOOD!!!!!" and we found out immediately that:
1) GDF is even MORE deadly than 40k, if you can freaking believe it
2) the army matchup between our two armies (SM Primaris and GSC) was even MORE cartoonish, with GSC units even less capable of accomplishing anything at all (you know what the problem with GEQ infantry is, it's that their guns get 2 shots in rapid fire range and that they hit on 4s - they really ought to get only one shot and hit on 5s!)
All you really need to do is head on over to the proposed rules section and pull up any person's "I've rewritten the rules for 40k, it was SO EASY, this is SO much better" post, and with the exception of Mezmorki's system, which does actually seem relatively well put together and tested, you'll immediately find half a dozen ultra-vague rules additions that would give BCB an anyeurism should GW put it out in a new edition.
There are games I would love to be able to adapt to 40k. I've been enjoying the absolute hell out of battlegroup, but the problem is, I don't know if all of 40k could ever possibly fit into the structure BG provides. Morale is an amazing thing to hinge the game on, but 40k is way too based around FEARLESS WARRIORS WADING THROUGH FIRE. And the system for attacking armored targets doesn't work either - I don't think you could ever get everything in 40k into a system where successfully penetrating a vehicle's armor destroys it.
Lance845 wrote: Terraforming mars is almost nothing but anticipating what my opponents are going to do and heading them off or undermining them.
If their strat is to drag the game out for other VP i can terraform like mad to undermine their strategy. I constantly watch their resources to see if they are going for chains of terraforming bonuses on the various tracks. Milestones and awards are absolutely a element of the game you actively compete and can influence other players with. I watch their energy, money, hand size, and titanium to anticipate what they might trade for in colonies. And if you ever play with turmoil the politics game adds basically an entire side game of strategy and tactics to how you can mess with your opponents.
Anyone who thinks terraforming mars is a solitaire game has no idea what they are doing when they are playing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention the placing tiles on the board is a game in and of itself where your interactions with the other players can screw you out of vp or flat out steal it from your opponents. I am litterally blown away that you would think so little of the player to player interaction.
That is still 100% mathematically solvable though.
You can always run an alghoritm to find the "optimal choice", even when you need to interact with the opponent.
All games are mathematically solvable.
I played bridge at international level. That is a game where you need to play with the unknown factor of what your 2 opponents will do, AND the unknown factor of what your team mate will do!
And yet let me tell you that almost all of it is running percentages in your head.
Bridge has far fewer conditions on when you can and should play your cards. Terraforming Mars has a cost, possible additional requirements, a game board, rewards which often vary by game state, groups of 2 actions per round leading to complexity of when to take an action within a round, actions granted by cards, fixed cost actions , interactions between cards, an every filling track for O2 and heat which both ends the game and allows or disallows cards to be played. Bridge is checkers to this game's chess.
Having many variables doesn't make it not solvable.
There are some variables you can't realistically solve for in freeform wargaming (i.e. games played without a hexgrid or defined map) - Theres a theoretically infinite number of positional permutations based on where a model/unit is located in relation to every other model/unit, which is compounded by things like line of sight, terrain, and weapons ranges, etc. Thats not to say that it can't be solved, just that you'd need a supercomputer to do it (and depending on the game even a supercomputer might struggle to actually calculate/solve all that).
The question isn't whether a game is solved or not, it's whether it's sufficiently complex that two human beings playing the game can't mathematically solve it themselves in the time given.
This.
I think the problem with this discussion is that one side is arguing that tactics is zero.
I think this is objectively false.
Why does a move being determinably optimal mean it's not a valid decision for the player? Literally the whole point of a game is to enact what you think is the optimal play to win.
Noughts and Crosses may have minimal tactical interplay, but it's there.
40k definitely has more tactical interplay than that, I can't imagine that's actually up for the debate.
So arguing that 40k has zero tactics just seems stupid to me. I don't think 40k is the most tactically deep game on the market, far from it, but it's not a trivial solution. Otherwise, why isn't it the same list winning every tournament?
If 40k was so easy to solve, why isn't the hardcore tournament community solving their games?
Lets say "strategy" (i.e. listbuilding) accounts for 60% of the game outcome, and "logistics" (i.e. points economy) accounts for another 30%. "Tactics" (i.e. action economy) then only accounts for 10% of the games outcome. Throwing some numbers at the wall, you can solve probably about 80% of the strategic and logistical problem, and probably about 20% of the Tactical problem, which leaves things about 74% solved, or put another way about 26% of the game is unsolvable (at least within the constraints of the human mind). Basically, we can get an approximate solution but not an actual solution, and the outstanding 26% is the wiggle room that we have to work out during actual gameplay. Debates about listbuilding and points efficiency are largely intertwined and get you the most potential return, whereas the tactical discussion requires a lot of energy to discuss and has situational limitations that make it difficult to do so outside of the context of a specific game being played, and have a minimal return on investment.
You can make tactical threads about x-wing because you can limit the scenario to half a dozen models.
More importantly you can realistically limit the number of permutations due to the tightly defined maneuvers. In 40k a model has a theoretically infinite spread of potential positional endpoints it can land on within its movement range each turn. For X-Wing the number is fixed, usually around 10-20 though some special rules can increase that.
There are games I would love to be able to adapt to 40k. I've been enjoying the absolute hell out of battlegroup, but the problem is, I don't know if all of 40k could ever possibly fit into the structure BG provides. Morale is an amazing thing to hinge the game on, but 40k is way too based around FEARLESS WARRIORS WADING THROUGH FIRE. And the system for attacking armored targets doesn't work either - I don't think you could ever get everything in 40k into a system where successfully penetrating a vehicle's armor destroys it.
I've been wondering the same and tend to agree if you're looking to drop in a historical ruleset. They're just not written to support sci-fi concepts like large disparities between infantry.
Dust 1947 has a system that would probably work quite well however. It's even built with power armour and such being a thing in mind.
Star Wars Legion could also work very well I feel.
And that's just two rulesets that I'm familiar with.
I've also looked at Grimdark Future. I think it's quite close to being good, but especially Primaris seem ridiculously over the top. Maybe that's just because it has a lot of mechanics similar to older editions of 40k.
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.
What's this nonsense? 'Melee players' (whoever that mythical group is supposed to include) didn't influence squat, let alone make this happen. GW's new default board size took everyone* by surprise and there's no rhyme or reason to it.
*almost everyone. Some of the playtest groups obviously knew and the predatory gangs like Frontline were certainly posed to sell new gaming mats early. Its certainly easier to 'fill up' the board with the handful of terrain pieces in tournaments at this size (but still doesn't really fix the Planet Bowling Ball problem). Why not blame them if you're going to randomly accuse people that aren't GW for changes to GW rules?
This group exists in every game. Go play LOL - practically no reason to play a ranged champion anymore because essentially every melee champion can jump on you from a screens length. 40k is no different now - melee units threatening a charge at the max range of your guns is common. It is not nonsense. It isn't tactical though. Getting units into melee should be a challenge - because the reward is so high. 40k gives it to you by automatic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We are trivializing the small amount of tactics that exist. They are so basic and amount to aim your weapons at this unit until it is dead and rinse and repeat. That is tactics to you?
Spoletta wrote: Not all factions are harlequins or banana bikes.
Okay when it's not them - it's magnus with a double move - or shining spears with a double move - or ork da jump. Or whatever. Closing ground is so fething easy. There is no maneuver. 40k is plug and play - point and click. You just essentially need to know where to point the hammer and you are a top player.
Slipspace wrote: The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.
There's a scenario on page 2.
Sssshh! He's hoping people forget that. Seriously, I'm surprised people are still chatting with the troll. His argument has boiled down to "If you define tactics the way I define them, then there are no tactics." and not "let's talk about the OP's subject matter". I would encourage everyone to just proceed with more scenarios, because I'll keep chatting about them for sure!
Heck, let's do another one
------------
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Au contraire it could also be that my local strategical meta still is behind in some manners or that knights are really liked still.
And you haven't disputed anything other than proclaimed that you disagree.
Fine, show me the possible tactical interesting interaction on a small nu gw standard table tm with gw plates tm with no interactivity encouraged beyond sit on objective more or less because there's no weakpoint to tanks f.e. anymore so no reward for potentially exposing an AT unit to get a clear shot.
Name one change that increased tactical complexity and onfield decision making since 8th or 9th.
If your meta ( if people can even have one right now ) carries enough AT to kill knights then someone should absolutely steam roll victories with hordes without worrying about killing anything.
I can't pontificate on every individual meta. I can on 17,000+ games that do follow a notion on how 9th is played and in that standard blocking with transports is a legitimately viable scenario.
chaos0xomega wrote: Lets say "strategy" (i.e. listbuilding) accounts for 60% of the game outcome, and "logistics" (i.e. points economy) accounts for another 30%. "Tactics" (i.e. action economy) then only accounts for 10% of the games outcome. Throwing some numbers at the wall, you can solve probably about 80% of the strategic and logistical problem, and probably about 20% of the Tactical problem, which leaves things about 74% solved, or put another way about 26% of the game is unsolvable (at least within the constraints of the human mind). Basically, we can get an approximate solution but not an actual solution, and the outstanding 26% is the wiggle room that we have to work out during actual gameplay. Debates about listbuilding and points efficiency are largely intertwined and get you the most potential return, whereas the tactical discussion requires a lot of energy to discuss and has situational limitations that make it difficult to do so outside of the context of a specific game being played, and have a minimal return on investment.
This comment resonates the most with me of the comments that I've seen thus far. Thank you!
Despite starting this discussion and defending the existence of tactical choices in 40K, I DO agree with many (heck I think there might even be consensus) that table-level tactics are not the biggest (and may in fact be one of the smallest) factors in determining the outcome of a game.
But to assert that tactical choices don't exist or don't matter is absurd. If a player decided to only move directly forward towards its nearest objective and only shoot at the nearest target, they would probably lose. There isn't "that" much depth to the tactics, but there is enough room for player's to make mistakes. And while there are often obvious "solutions" to a given tactical situation, there are occasions where the right move isn't obvious and players might have a tough choice to make (super-computer aid notwithstanding).
It may be that most of the tactical decisions are relatively easy to boil down into heuristics ("rules of thumb") for tactical best practice. That's what the Goonhammer articles were all about. But I think there needs to be a commensurate recognition that most tactical decisions in any game can be similarly boiled down to heuristic rules of thumb. Tactics are routinely matters of finite problem solving (i.e. chess problems) and optimization/logistic exercises (see the vast swath of modern engine-building eurogames). Sometimes these tactics are more or less interactive, sometimes they hinge on more/less randomness. But there are similar in many respects. Also, we need to recognize that other games provide more opportunities for making different STRATEGIC choices mid-game, becaue the scope and length of the game is much longer.
So, what we might, ultimately, be getting at, is that (1) 40K is a game heavily contingent on pre-game planning and deployment (strategy); (2) that while there are tactical decisions to make in the game, (3) due to the structure of the mission, board size, game length, there are relatively limited opportunities for "changing your strategy" mid-game in ways that actually impact the result. Perhaps that's where the game's greatest weakness lies. It's not a matter of not having tactics, it is rather a matter that shifting strategies is pretty difficult.
the_scotsman wrote: It's almost like, theres some kind of distinction between a board game, which is designed for players to not do much prep and generally by the nature of the game presents a somewhat randomized experience to the player, and a wargame where you construct, paint, and customize your entire force that tends to lead players to want a lot of the game to revolve around pre-planning.
Im not certain but im fairly sure that were you to assign point values to chess pieces and allow the player to deploy as they like, youd remove almost all of the tactical depth from chess as you added in that strategic layer.
My friends and I actually did this and it's true. We didn't change deployment, but we assigned a value to each piece so that we could determine a winner when time didn't allow us to get all the way to checkmate. And you're right, it 100% changes the nature of the game- even without altering deployment.
But what I really like about this post is that it acknowledges the thing that keeps discussions in this forum adversarial; we each want different things out of the game. When I hear the AA Bolt Action, or hardcore strategy folks talk about how their ideas would improve 40k... The game they propose would bore me to tears, yet paradoxically force me to to focus on the table to the exclusion of everything else in the room because it would be "My Turn" every one or two minutes. But then when it was my turn, it would also only be my turn for one or two minutes- I'd feel like I was constantly doing something, but nothing I was constantly doing would be impactful enough to satisfy me. I'd HATE it.
Just like when I post on forums, I'd rather spend 20 minutes writing a lengthy post full of detail, and get responses of the same calibre than spread that 20 minutes out over 20 snippy one line posts that solicit nothing but one liners in response. It's a different set of preferences- neither approach is objectively right or wrong, they're just different. This is why I've thought Twitter was garbage since it's inception.
And people who like the AA, all tactics style of game cannot understand my point of view anymore than I can understand theirs. We want different things from the game- there is no way it can make both of us happy. I feel like what I want out of the game is more in tune with the game GW wants to make, because some of the things other people most want to change are things that have been with us since the very beginning; again, that doesn't make me "right" and all these other people "wrong." But I do think people who want this game to be AA are setting themselves up for disappointment, because the 34 year old Empire that is Warhammer 40k was established based on IGOUGO game play and it has continued for all 34 years of the game's existence. If Apocalypse had sold more copies than the 8th ed BRB, GW might have thought about changing. It didn't. They won't.
And don't get me wrong- I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy an occasional game of Bolt Action- I'm a gamer; I probably would. But it would never come close to replacing 40k, and I doubt it would ever become a regular habit. Just like Full Throttle, Legions of Steel, Inferno and Battletech were all fun for an afternoon, but could never come anywhere near replacing what I get out of 40k.
My favourite video games are Koei Dynasty Warrior/ Samurai Warrior titles. They don't have a lot of tactical depth either, but I've never found a videogame franchise I like anywhere near as much. Like 40k, there are a dozen different versions of each title, and I like some more than others. If you tried to bring a greater level of tactics to those games, you'd kill what I like about them.
Everyone that I know that's played Apocalpyse believes it's a better ruleset for 40k than 40k's is.
I admit you're the first person I've heard say they like the fact they can walk away from the table for twenty minutes without missing anything. To me that's a horrific sin.
I can see the appeal if 40k is just an excuse to hang out with friends, but it leaves me wondering why have the game at all.
kirotheavenger wrote: Everyone that I know that's played Apocalpyse believes it's a better ruleset for 40k than 40k's is.
I admit you're the first person I've heard say they like the fact they can walk away from the table for twenty minutes without missing anything. To me that's a horrific sin.
I can see the appeal if 40k is just an excuse to hang out with friends, but it leaves me wondering why have the game at all.
It is also massively stripped down. Activating a knight in 40K a bit different than activating a knight in Apoc.
Sure - you could claim a lot of moves you make in a turn are utilizing some of these maneuvers. However, when rapid dominance and force concentration are the only things that matter and basically always win. Is it safe to say at that point that the game has no "tactics" but it has a singular tactic?
Actual war has a temporal factor and a human factor that this game can't even come close to replicating. It starts you in an immediate pitched battle to the death in a box you can't escape from. Your options are essentially kill or be killed.
How much patrolling are you going to do? Or feigning retreat?
Shoot and scoot? Sure. The game allows me to do that with no penalty.
Decoy...okay...I'll give you that one. I actually do this a lot in game. Realistically though - it is just a suicide mission / kamikaze attack (which is mostly a pre game design).
kirotheavenger wrote: Everyone that I know that's played Apocalpyse believes it's a better ruleset for 40k than 40k's is.
I admit you're the first person I've heard say they like the fact they can walk away from the table for twenty minutes without missing anything. To me that's a horrific sin.
I can see the appeal if 40k is just an excuse to hang out with friends, but it leaves me wondering why have the game at all.
The complaints I've gotten about apoc are basically that it removes the micro-rules that make you feel like your dudes are 'your dudes.' Which is a legitimate complaint: people like 40k because it's huge and sprawling and expansive, allowing you to customize your force and make little micro decisions.
it's the "DnD" of wargames. DnD is a huge sprawling crazy gigantic imbalanced mess, and a hyper stripped down game system like PBTA or Fates is invariably way more balanced because there's vastly fewer options.
But some people like the options and can forgive the lack of blaance to get them.
kirotheavenger wrote: Everyone that I know that's played Apocalpyse believes it's a better ruleset for 40k than 40k's is.
I admit you're the first person I've heard say they like the fact they can walk away from the table for twenty minutes without missing anything. To me that's a horrific sin.
I can see the appeal if 40k is just an excuse to hang out with friends, but it leaves me wondering why have the game at all.
It has more to do with how much I get to do on my turn than enjoying the down time. Resolving the actions of a single unit just isn't enough for me. I like moving/ shooting/ fighting with my whole army enough that I'm willing to wait for my opponent to do that too.
These discussions come up all the time. The comparison I always use is the difference between American football and Soccer; in the later, action is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth all freakin game and part way in, I'm getting whiplash from swinging from one end of the field to the other. In the former, you get 4 downs so you can build a drive.
Again, neither is right or wrong- they're just different styles of game.
I can see the appeal of AA; I just don't prefer it. I don't get to do enough with each of the turns I have to make them feel important. I feel like I'm constantly being interrupted.
I usually leave these threads once it becomes obvious that no one on the other side is willing to say they see the appeal of intra-unit coordination which is not possible to the same degree in AA. They could do what I do and say "I say the appeal, but still prefer what I prefer." But they don't. They tend to insist that only their point of view has any merit whatsoever, despite the fact that the the world's most popular tabletop miniatures game has disagreed for 34 years and managed to become and remain the world's most popular tabletop game despite the IGOUGO system.
kirotheavenger wrote: Everyone that I know that's played Apocalpyse believes it's a better ruleset for 40k than 40k's is.
I admit you're the first person I've heard say they like the fact they can walk away from the table for twenty minutes without missing anything. To me that's a horrific sin.
I can see the appeal if 40k is just an excuse to hang out with friends, but it leaves me wondering why have the game at all.
It has more to do with how much I get to do on my turn than enjoying the down time. Resolving the actions of a single unit just isn't enough for me. I like moving/ shooting/ fighting with my whole army enough that I'm willing to wait for my opponent to do that too.
These discussions come up all the time. The comparison I always use is the difference between American football and Soccer; in the later, action is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth all freakin game and part way in, I'm getting whiplash from swinging from one end of the field to the other. In the former, you get 4 downs so you can build a drive.
Again, neither is right or wrong- they're just different styles of game.
I can see the appeal of AA; I just don't prefer it. I don't get to do enough with each of the turns I have to make them feel important. I feel like I'm constantly being interrupted.
I usually leave these threads once it becomes obvious that no one on the other side is willing to say they see the appeal of intra-unit coordination which is not possible to the same degree in AA. They could do what I do and say "I say the appeal, but still prefer what I prefer." But they don't. They tend to insist that only their point of view has any merit whatsoever, despite the fact that the the world's most popular tabletop miniatures game has disagreed for 34 years and managed to become and remain the world's most popular tabletop game despite the IGOUGO system.
Your football comparison sucks since the defense can actually do something actively. Have you actually ever watched a game or just assumed defense sat there twiddling their thumbs waiting for offense to do everything?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you don't like you're interrupted? AKA you don't like your opponent is allowed to counter you? Great defense for IGOUGO, champ.
I think Blood Bowl is a fantastic example of intra-unit coordination in a IGOUGO system.
That said, I very much agree with the point that instead of complaining about 40k we should be thinking about what it does right. I mean, the opportunity to walk away from the table during an opponent's turn is fantastic for rubber-necking at tournaments, and seems to contribute to facilitating social interaction around the table. Like a hub, the table organizes the social interaction around it.
I think one of the things it does really well is appealing to a wide variety of goals and interests, and being good enough to do a bunch of things at once. I think the list-building is critical because it keeps it at the forefront of many players' minds, while the painting and modeling complement that activity while not being dependent on it.
PenitentJake wrote: I usually leave these threads once it becomes obvious that no one on the other side is willing to say they see the appeal of intra-unit coordination which is not possible to the same degree in AA. They could do what I do and say "I say the appeal, but still prefer what I prefer." But they don't. They tend to insist that only their point of view has any merit whatsoever, despite the fact that the the world's most popular tabletop miniatures game has disagreed for 34 years and managed to become and remain the world's most popular tabletop game despite the IGOUGO system.
I participated in bigger thread here recently and was trying to make this exact point, which is that AA-systems run the risk of tipping the game too much towards a tactical back-and-forth, and making the game more about optimal activation sequence, and you lose sight of the big sweeping army-wide movement opportunities.
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
This is a very good point, and many AA players have pointed out that there are different types and levels of AA. Kill Team, for example, is a bit of a hybrid as movement is IGOUGO, but it still has activations for shooting, etc. So I'm sure it is possible to strike a balance; personally, the only thing about the game in its current state that I find sub-par is the imbalance between model ranges, and that may end up being addressed by the end of the edition for all we know.
And Slayer, while I probably should ignore you, since the obvious (and unnecessarily) hostile tone of your post implies that it will be futile to do otherwise, I'll give it a shot for the sake of diplomacy. Yes, I have watched football, and yes I understand that there is a defense. I even understand that for some football fans, defensive stars are their actual heroes, even if the vast majority of fans seem to place more importance on those who play offense.
Surely though, you can feel the difference in rhythm between the two games, which is the actual point I'm making. And while I don't have many friends that are soccer fans, I do have a great many who are hockey fans (I'm Canadian, so go figure). I get into this debate with all of them too- they fail to understand how a long-cycle, slow rhythm provides a different type of satisfaction than constant back and forth engagement.
And if you want to get technical, there is a defensive component in 40k as well; you have to roll saves, you can deny my psychic powers and you get to fight in hand to hand. You can also use some reaction strats- overwatch, various cancel actions, etc. In fact in some Tau builds, there are still ways to get more than one unit to overwatch per turn. And sure, none of these defensive activities are as involved as what the active player is doing, but they are there. And you may notice, I've never said the "argument sucks" to any of the AA advocates who choose to ignore this; nor have I felt inclined to ask any of them if they've ever seen a game of 40k.
But that's because I try to understand and respond to the points they are making rather than nit-pick the semantics. To be fair, there have been a handful of times where I've suggested that aligning semantics may facilitate a smoother discussion, but it's rare that I have to because most people here are fairly articulate, even when I happen to disagree with them, and I usually get the point they are making, even when I feel the point has been imperfectly made.
Don't know you guys, but during the opponent's turn I don't take my eyes off the table for even a second. I'm too busy studying my next turn and adjusting it after each one of my opponent's moves and roll outcomes.
I'm not entirely wedded to an absolute AA system.
Although I will say that I find Kill Team or Aeronautica's system absolutely horrendous, worst system I've encountered lol.
I do appreciate the sense of inter-unit tactics that you can play with IgoUgo better than AA. Although it has to be said, a lot of AA systems have some ability to activate multiple units at once.
It's the waiting in between turns for literally up to an *hour* with no ability to do anything, at all, which kills me in 40k.
I'm one of those people that stands up when I'm excited and engaged. If I sit down I'm bored and uninterested in the game. I spend ~half my 40k time sat down.
As examples of games and activation systems;
Band of Brothers: uses an AA system where armies get a maximum and minimum number of units they can activate in a turn. So the Germans might be able to activate between 4 and 6 units, whereas the more flexible 101st AB might be able to activate 3-7 units.
There's still the opportunity to 'combo' multiple units at once, but no one has to wait long for a turn. Additionally there's 'overwatch' reaction fire.
Necromunda: has a system where your leaders can activate multiple fighters at a time, again allowing 'combos'. (Although it has to be said this is rarely a good option in favour of activating more units after your opponent).
Blood Bowl: turns just aren't that long so no one's waiting for more than 2-4 minutes at a time, on top of that a bad roll can swing the play sequence at any moment.
Battlegroup: is IgoUgo but there's lots of opportunity to interrupt a player with fire or movement.
I'll also say that 40k is popular for many reasons, fun and engaging tactical gameplay just isn't one of those reasons.
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
This is a very good point, and many AA players have pointed out that there are different types and levels of AA. Kill Team, for example, is a bit of a hybrid as movement is IGOUGO, but it still has activations for shooting, etc. So I'm sure it is possible to strike a balance; personally, the only thing about the game in its current state that I find sub-par is the imbalance between model ranges, and that may end up being addressed by the end of the edition for all we know.
It's a phased activation system that it the best (at least on paper) approach I've seen for playing 40K with an AA-like system that doesn't require some massive rework to codexes and special rules. It basically shakes up the normal process and makes it a bit more interactive.
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
This is a very good point, and many AA players have pointed out that there are different types and levels of AA. Kill Team, for example, is a bit of a hybrid as movement is IGOUGO, but it still has activations for shooting, etc. So I'm sure it is possible to strike a balance; personally, the only thing about the game in its current state that I find sub-par is the imbalance between model ranges, and that may end up being addressed by the end of the edition for all we know.
It's a phased activation system that it the best (at least on paper) approach I've seen for playing 40K with an AA-like system that doesn't require some massive rework to codexes and special rules. It basically shakes up the normal process and makes it a bit more interactive.
As kiro points out in their reply to that post - it is definitely a thing that takes longer to do. AA games by nature tend to take a bit longer to play (I had a good chuckle about how someone earlier in this thread claimed that due to the low number of battlerounds each model makes means 40k is like tic tac toe because I thought of Infinity, where the median number of actions your average model makes in the game's 4 rounds is most likely "Zero" due to how Cheerleading works in Infinity) and the low modification version of the system where you go through and alternate each phase of the turn takes a WHILE.
the "rallying' mechanic is something of a hybrid between Apocalypse and Necromunda, because we found trying to go straight for Apocalypse (where you activate whole detachments) resulted in the game being basically identical to 40k as it is now, and going for Necromunda style (where characters can activate 1 unit) made co-ordination between multiple units impossible.
It's a phased activation system that it the best (at least on paper) approach I've seen for playing 40K with an AA-like system that doesn't require some massive rework to codexes and special rules. It basically shakes up the normal process and makes it a bit more interactive.
I think this demonstrates that it's really difficult because different players want dramatically different systems.
No offence to Scotsman, but that type of system is one of the worst I've ever used (in games like Killteam) and I prefer 40k's current system. I go into more depth about why within that thread. I also suggest something I would prefer.
When my uni society plays apocalypse games, we use a form of AA where each team can activate 3-4 units a turn (one per player on the team). Each unit goes through the phases exactly like normal. They're not even required to keep pace with the other units activating at the same time (although that's more just to smooth over 4 people all going at once).
It works well enough and it keeps stuff moving back and forth quickly, something that's super important for an apocalypse game but still matters for regular 40k.
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.
What's this nonsense? 'Melee players' (whoever that mythical group is supposed to include) didn't influence squat, let alone make this happen. GW's new default board size took everyone* by surprise and there's no rhyme or reason to it.
*almost everyone. Some of the playtest groups obviously knew and the predatory gangs like Frontline were certainly posed to sell new gaming mats early. Its certainly easier to 'fill up' the board with the handful of terrain pieces in tournaments at this size (but still doesn't really fix the Planet Bowling Ball problem). Why not blame them if you're going to randomly accuse people that aren't GW for changes to GW rules?
This group exists in every game. Go play LOL - practically no reason to play a ranged champion anymore because essentially every melee champion can jump on you from a screens length. 40k is no different now - melee units threatening a charge at the max range of your guns is common. It is not nonsense. It isn't tactical though. Getting units into melee should be a challenge - because the reward is so high. 40k gives it to you by automatic.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: We are trivializing the small amount of tactics that exist. They are so basic and amount to aim your weapons at this unit until it is dead and rinse and repeat. That is tactics to you?
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Unfortunately - and I think this is why such conversations don't appear, rather than the lack of tactical depth - I don't play CSM, and so offering insight is a bit difficult.
Realistically - for scenario 2 - if he's got a full screen up and you've lost your ranged threat+discordant, then I'm not really sure what you can hope for. It seems like a good example why deep striking is such a gamble in modern 40k.
I guess you could shoot twice - but I don't think terminator shooting is anything to get overly excited about. Unless I'm missing something obvious. (I'm sure Sonic Terminators aren't that far away.)
Precisely because I don't *know* I'm reduced to say in both scenarios: "throw them into that screen and hope your opponent has a terrible turn 2/3 so you can connect with those (presumably?) shooty robots and tracked guys". Which I can't say is the optimal play - but without that knowledge that comes from playing lots of games, I'm sort at a loss. My knowledge is that Admech gunlines are amongst the best in the game, and you really need to shut them by getting something into contact with them.
You could I guess go after (or prepare for) the Priests - but then you'll likely be out of the game for many turns while they pound you into dust. Depending on the scenario it might not be the worst idea though, because they'll loathe to break up their castle - so they'll have 2 objectives but you should also have 2 objectives.
Pulp Alley is a Necromunda-scale game typically set in Indiana Jones-style pulp fiction, but it has a really neat way of dealing with the 'bittiness' of alternating action systems. Basically a player has an initiative, and the player with the initiative chooses which unit acts next regardless of which player actually controls that action, which each unit having a set number of actions per turn. Players can lose the initiative if they fail an action, like investigating a plot point model on the battlefield (the equivalent of an action in 40k these days I think) or by losing a fight, so the player forced to act with a unit has an opportunity to try and force a fight. This is a really neat way of getting players to interact, to shape the game, and fight over the advantages that having the initiative confers.
Tyel wrote: Precisely because I don't *know* I'm reduced to say in both scenarios: "throw them into that screen and hope your opponent has a terrible turn 2/3 so you can connect with those (presumably?) shooty robots and tracked guys".
I don't play these guys exactly either, but I've played against a mean Admech gunline like that. The main question, I think, boils down to the question of whether it's better to go offensive or defensive here. It's not an easy call, especially because you're already losing from the sounds of it. If it was a regular tourney? I might try to go for a hail-mary offensive play to win. If it was a team tourney, I might go defensive and even though I'd likely lose, maybe I can reduce how much I would lose by.
Slipspace wrote: The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.
There's a scenario on page 2.
Sssshh! He's hoping people forget that. Seriously, I'm surprised people are still chatting with the troll. His argument has boiled down to "If you define tactics the way I define them, then there are no tactics." and not "let's talk about the OP's subject matter". I would encourage everyone to just proceed with more scenarios, because I'll keep chatting about them for sure!
Heck, let's do another one
------------
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Realistically to present this type of puzzle you need to present a full image of the board state, two complete army lists, how much CP each player has left. This works best if you steal a scenario from a real battle report as then you can also show what actually happened and how it worked out. With the above example, we're still given far too little information to actually make a sound call as to what the optimal choice would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: So, what we might, ultimately, be getting at, is that (1) 40K is a game heavily contingent on pre-game planning and deployment (strategy); (2) that while there are tactical decisions to make in the game, (3) due to the structure of the mission, board size, game length, there are relatively limited opportunities for "changing your strategy" mid-game in ways that actually impact the result. Perhaps that's where the game's greatest weakness lies. It's not a matter of not having tactics, it is rather a matter that shifting strategies is pretty difficult.
I agree with this but would also like to add that the strategies that can be shifted to are all picked from a pretty shallow pool and often making the right call is simply a matter of knowing the rules well enough to not fall into a trap. As such I think it's fair to say that, from the perspective of a skilled player, tactics don't exist in any kind of exciting or particularly meaningful way.
I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities but have a bit more dynamic is to focus more on a reaction-type system. Players take their turn in the normal IGOUGO fashion, but there are opportunities to perform reaction moves (that in turn affect your own options when your own turn rolls around). Classic 40K had "Go to Ground." We've built on this with ProHammer to add reactive fire to the game (with various tradeoffs involved in the decision) a couple of different charge reactions, better overwatch (true overwatch). All of this still IGOUGO, but it makes turs a little bit more interactive and engaging for non-active player, but still lets the active player do their big sweeping maneuvers.
This is a very good point, and many AA players have pointed out that there are different types and levels of AA. Kill Team, for example, is a bit of a hybrid as movement is IGOUGO, but it still has activations for shooting, etc. So I'm sure it is possible to strike a balance; personally, the only thing about the game in its current state that I find sub-par is the imbalance between model ranges, and that may end up being addressed by the end of the edition for all we know.
And Slayer, while I probably should ignore you, since the obvious (and unnecessarily) hostile tone of your post implies that it will be futile to do otherwise, I'll give it a shot for the sake of diplomacy. Yes, I have watched football, and yes I understand that there is a defense. I even understand that for some football fans, defensive stars are their actual heroes, even if the vast majority of fans seem to place more importance on those who play offense.
Surely though, you can feel the difference in rhythm between the two games, which is the actual point I'm making. And while I don't have many friends that are soccer fans, I do have a great many who are hockey fans (I'm Canadian, so go figure). I get into this debate with all of them too- they fail to understand how a long-cycle, slow rhythm provides a different type of satisfaction than constant back and forth engagement.
And if you want to get technical, there is a defensive component in 40k as well; you have to roll saves, you can deny my psychic powers and you get to fight in hand to hand. You can also use some reaction strats- overwatch, various cancel actions, etc. In fact in some Tau builds, there are still ways to get more than one unit to overwatch per turn. And sure, none of these defensive activities are as involved as what the active player is doing, but they are there. And you may notice, I've never said the "argument sucks" to any of the AA advocates who choose to ignore this; nor have I felt inclined to ask any of them if they've ever seen a game of 40k.
But that's because I try to understand and respond to the points they are making rather than nit-pick the semantics. To be fair, there have been a handful of times where I've suggested that aligning semantics may facilitate a smoother discussion, but it's rare that I have to because most people here are fairly articulate, even when I happen to disagree with them, and I usually get the point they are making, even when I feel the point has been imperfectly made.
No, your comparison to football was completely inaccurate and wrong, full stop. There's no "rhythm" to achieve when the opponent is shooting at you and you do nothing but...well, nothing. The fact you even came to that conclusion is quite honestly mind boggling unless you have, in fact, never watched a game of American Football. This isn't about preferences. This is about being wrong to begin with for your comparisons.
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Unfortunately - and I think this is why such conversations don't appear, rather than the lack of tactical depth - I don't play CSM, and so offering insight is a bit difficult.
Realistically - for scenario 2 - if he's got a full screen up and you've lost your ranged threat+discordant, then I'm not really sure what you can hope for. It seems like a good example why deep striking is such a gamble in modern 40k.
I guess you could shoot twice - but I don't think terminator shooting is anything to get overly excited about. Unless I'm missing something obvious. (I'm sure Sonic Terminators aren't that far away.)
Precisely because I don't *know* I'm reduced to say in both scenarios: "throw them into that screen and hope your opponent has a terrible turn 2/3 so you can connect with those (presumably?) shooty robots and tracked guys". Which I can't say is the optimal play - but without that knowledge that comes from playing lots of games, I'm sort at a loss. My knowledge is that Admech gunlines are amongst the best in the game, and you really need to shut them by getting something into contact with them.
You could I guess go after (or prepare for) the Priests - but then you'll likely be out of the game for many turns while they pound you into dust. Depending on the scenario it might not be the worst idea though, because they'll loathe to break up their castle - so they'll have 2 objectives but you should also have 2 objectives.
uhhh Choas terms can all take combi weapons. Just imagine 40 plamsa or 20 melta shots. It utterly dominates - they just have no reliable turn 1 deployment for them. Once they get 3 wounds - it is going to be a top build provided they keep the shoot twice stratagem.
Spoletta wrote: Having many variables doesn't make it not solvable.
Solving for the hidden variables would be difficult. Even if you had every card ranked for every possible board and hand state the fact that you know so little about your opponent's hands could easily make the game unsolvable.
Consider that from the start of a standard game you get to pick from a pool of 10 cards and your opponents all do the same, thus you've seen 10 of 137 cards in the projects deck as have your opponents. As the values of cards change based on which other cards you see and which cards your opponents have you can't yet accurately judge the value of your cards. You can make an educated guess and probably formulate a basic plan with what you know but your error bars on card values will be massive. Once players buy cards, usually between 2 and 6 cards, the rest goes to the discard pile leaving the main deck holding 97 cards. A first turn isn't usually huge as income is low and many cards can't yet be played so you might see each player play out 1 or 2 cards and take an action, you know 3 to 6 of your opponent's cards, have twice that in unknown cards in players hands and roughly that same number of discarded cards. Playing the draft variant - for maximum player interaction - you're then dealt 4 cards, you pick 1 and pass three over, pick one of them, and so on. Thus you see 9 of 16 cards creating 5 more hidden cards. This isn't to add in any political maneuvers and prisoner's dilemma scenarios at the table where your optimal play might only be optimal if another player does or doesn't take an action.
Due to the hidden knowledge, the constant fluctuation of the value of your cards, even within a round of play, and your optimal plays being dependant on your opponent's plays I don't think this style of game can be solved in the way that a game without hidden information can be.
It sure would be cool if we had more to do on defense. Like when a unit gets targeted they could lie prone or dive for cover. Or at the very least - we could have chance to cast defensive powers...defensively.
Daedalus81 wrote: It is also massively stripped down. Activating a knight in 40K a bit different than activating a knight in Apoc.
Activating a Knight in 40k is just moving and shooting some number of weapons. It's no more or less interesting than activating anything else, actually, it is less because unlike 3 units that equal the points of a knight you have fewer options for how to control space with a knight.
Slipspace wrote: The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.
There's a scenario on page 2.
Sssshh! He's hoping people forget that. Seriously, I'm surprised people are still chatting with the troll.
His argument has boiled down to "If you define tactics the way I define them, then there are no tactics." and not "let's talk about the OP's subject matter". I would encourage everyone to just proceed with more scenarios, because I'll keep chatting about them for sure!
Heck, let's do another one
------------
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Realistically to present this type of puzzle you need to present a full image of the board state, two complete army lists, how much CP each player has left. This works best if you steal a scenario from a real battle report as then you can also show what actually happened and how it worked out. With the above example, we're still given far too little information to actually make a sound call as to what the optimal choice would be.
Firstly, @Yarium, if you think disagreement = trolling that's entirely on you. I think I've engaged just fine with this thread, albeit in opposition to the OP. I also note the scenario presented on page 2 barely got any replies to it, so either there's something lacking with the presentation or there may be something in the idea 40k lacks tactical depth which leads to a lack of tactical discussion. I don't think we can be too definitive from one example though.
Anyway, I agree with Canadian 5th. Real-game examples are better as is more information. That's exactly how the X-Wing examples I mentioned earlier were formulated. It also makes them much more applicable to a real-world scenario rather than some gamey, artificial situation (chess puzzles are often like that).
That said, in scenario #1 it seems you're in a good position to bring your Terminators down and get into your opponent's lines since his cavalry aren't in the way to screen/retreat. If possible I'd probably use the Lord Discordant to charge the dogs. Either he holds and likely dies or flees and abandons the objective. Both are wins. Ideally you try to kick the AdMech off the castled objective but at the very least you want to claim two objectives yourself to equalise the primary. Holding them back would give the Ad Mech player a chance to bring his screen into play. I'd be more worried about the fact your army's ranged output is only capable of killing 4 Kataphrons in a turn though, since it means clearing the screen is almost impossible.
In scenario #2 you've likely already lost. Apparently you don't have the firepower to kill the drill or the Priests and you still need to deal with the cavalry somehow. You're also apparently bad at screening since there's a drill in your backfield but let's let that one slide. Presumably a list with such poor shooting should be capable of dealing with the Priests in combat, as long as you activate that unit first to prevent an interrupt.
In both scenarios you probably want Engage on All Fronts as one of your secondaries and possibly scramblers for the easy points. At any rate, two things are apparent from this example:
1. The Chaos list seems pretty bad in general, lacking shooting and apparently lacking speed to deliver whatever close combat punch it has presumably given up its shooting for. This has put it on the back foot before the game even begins. This reinforces the point many people were making about the importance of on-the-table tactics versus pre-game list-building.
2. In the examples of tactical choices given above you'll note there's hardly any input from the opponent. It's entirely about what the Chaos player can do and all we assume is the AdMech player will use the retreat strat on his cavalry. This highlights the illusion of choice another poster mentioned earlier in this thread. If the AdMech player has the CPs and it's safe to use the strat there's no reason not to and it therefore isn't a choice at all. The Chaos player can look at the board state and be confident it won't change as he executes whatever plan he comes up with, save in the ways he plans to make it change through his own actions. This type of near-perfect information is exactly why people like me say 40k lacks tactical depth. There's too little interaction between me and my opponent.
PenitentJake wrote: It has more to do with how much I get to do on my turn than enjoying the down time. Resolving the actions of a single unit just isn't enough for me. I like moving/ shooting/ fighting with my whole army enough that I'm willing to wait for my opponent to do that too.
Most AA systems aren't just single unit activations so you get to activate - or not activate - some chunk of your force each time you get an action. You can also still set up combos 40k style but you need to be more clever about it as your opponent will likely get a chance to interrupt your plans, this leads to better tactical play.
These discussions come up all the time. The comparison I always use is the difference between American football and Soccer; in the later, action is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth all freakin game and part way in, I'm getting whiplash from swinging from one end of the field to the other. In the former, you get 4 downs so you can build a drive.
Football is a game where most of the time on the clock is spent not playing the game; the same cannot be said for Hockey, Soccer, Basketball, and other such timed sports.
Also, there is very much a tempo to a game of hockey. Much of that tempo is spent trying to establish control of the puck in your opponent's zone and/or prevent them from getting control of your zone, this is the back and forth that you seem to dislike. This tempo can break down in a few ways, either a team establishes control of the puck and setups a cycle looking to generate a scoring chance, or the play is broken and you have a rush. Once you have control the tempo then becomes one of passing, versus holding, versus shooting and it can vary based on how organized your opponent is, your own line's playstyle, what the score in the game is, and how tired your line is compared to the opposition. To say that a game of hockey - or even soccer - is all back and forth shows a profound ignorance of these sports.
Mezmorki wrote: I think the opportunity to KEEP the big sweeping move opportunities
These sorts of actions should be rare and only happen in a rout of your foe. Real-life battles - at least close-fought ones of the type we want in a wargame - often play out far more messily than what you seem to think is a selling point in 40k.
It sure would be cool if we had more to do on defense. Like when a unit gets targeted they could lie prone or dive for cover. Or at the very least - we could have chance to cast defensive powers...defensively.
Indeed. There's a lot that could be done in 40k even with an IGOUGO system, though a lot of the really cool stuff - like having effects on hits and making wounds far rarer than they currently are - could easily break the current system as player 1 could debuff your army. A fix might be that player one gets has a penalty to their attacks that vastly limits how effective they can be in a turn one blitz, but that's just a spitballed idea without a lot of thought behind it and might swing things too much towards player 2.
Slipspace wrote: Anyway, I agree with Canadian 5th. Real-game examples are better as is more information.
Or at least a full army-list, picture of the current game-state, and each player's current CP. 40k is so much about positioning and fractions of an inch that any kind of freeform text rendition of a scenario is either worthless or would take more effort to type than mocking up a complete map of the gamestate in paint would.
Mezmorki wrote: Something I've been mulling over for a while is that when it comes to talking about tactics in 40K, 99% of the time the discussion revolves around what units to pick or what to put in an army, or what wargear options to take. Go look at the tactics forum here or nearly anywhere else. And it made me realize that very little discussion takes place around actual table-level tactical choices. We talk about "what" to put in an army, but rarely talk about "how" to best use a given unit.
I think that when we're talking about army lists, we are really talking about our "strategy" and how we envision a given list being used to accomplish the mission's objectives. Deep strike unit X onto objective Y, flank with unit Z, etc. These strategies are, by nature, fairly broad and idealistic. And as the saying goes no plan survives contact with the enemy!
So the question is this (and hence why I'm asking this here in general and not in the tactics forum): What are the sorts of table-level tactical discussions that could be had, and why don't those seem to happen more? Is it a function of table-level tactics being relatively straight forward and thus not worth talking about?
I saw a post where someone said a top-level player could do well with nearly any army. If that's the case, and list building isn't a factor, what is a top level player doing that others aren't? Surely that must be table-level tactics? If so, what is there to say about it?
Table level tactics are pretty broad until you hit the board. They also vary mission by mission and by deployment. You're left saying things like 'prioritize your enemy's biggest damage threats', 'focus on taking objective over securing kills', 'be aware of consolidate/pile ranges when moving against melee armies', 'use cover'. Which aren't particularly difficult or groundbreaking until you actually have to use them.
It's a lot more difficult to talk specific tactics than it is to talk specific lists so lists get more air time.
Slipspace wrote: The fact nobody on the "40k is tactically complex" side of the argument has yet to present a scenario to analyse is quite telling, IMO. I remember about a year ago there were a series of posts on the official X-Wing forum with a snapshot of a game state with a lot of deep discussion about options for both players. They were some of the most interesting threads on that board. The absence of such things for 40k is probably an indicator of the relative tactical complexity of the two games.
There's a scenario on page 2.
Sssshh! He's hoping people forget that. Seriously, I'm surprised people are still chatting with the troll. His argument has boiled down to "If you define tactics the way I define them, then there are no tactics." and not "let's talk about the OP's subject matter". I would encourage everyone to just proceed with more scenarios, because I'll keep chatting about them for sure!
Heck, let's do another one
------------
You are planning for a tournament, and are worried about facing an Admech gunline (2 squads of Robots, 3 squads tracked troop dudes, Cawl, doggies, Termite drill w/Electropriests). Your store has a history of light terrain gaming tables, so you know that Obscuring terrain will be present, but likely just 2 pieces. You're bringing a Chaos list. Your list's claim to fame is that it has Terminators that get a near-guaranteed charge (Honour the Prince, one dice is automatically a 6), but you know this Admech force can screen with his doggies, and retreat them in response to a charge using a strat. Your other forces are mostly geared towards getting in and charging as well, so your shooting is mostly limited to a unit of Oblits, Havocs, and a Baleflamer from your Lord Discordant.
Allow yourself to have whatever secondaries and additional forces you want for the following scenarios (since it's so hard to come up with everything), and fill in the gaps where you think you need to. How do you Deep Strike your Emperor's Children Terminators this turn? What do they do? Assume Admech have taken Grind Them Down, Deploy Scramblers, and Linebreaker.
2 Scenarios;
#1 - You got the first turn. Admech dogs hid turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. You lost two units to his firepower turn 1, but the Lord Discordant is (barely) alive, though can likely charge his lines this turn as well. If Admech stays on both objectives this turn, he'll score at least 10 points on Primary. He scored 1 turn of Grind Them Down (3), a Priest with a buff aura scrambled his deployment zone, and he did not score Linebreaker turn 1.
#2 - You got the second turn. Admech hid his dogs turn 1, with one squad hidden while also on an objective, and most of the rest of his army castled up on a second one. His second turn he moved his dogs to spread out, encircling his army as best as he could to push out your deep strike areas, and he brought in his Termite Drill with Electropriests hidden by the drill, who deployed Scramblers in your deployment zone. He killed two of your units turn 1, and another two on turn 2, leaving you without your Oblits, Havocs, or Lord Discordant. At this point, you need to get onto some more objectives as well to stop Admech scoring 15 on his turn for holding more than you. You killed 4 tracked troop dudes with your shooting turn 1. He scored Grind Them Down both turns 1 and 2, he has deployed 2 scramblers so far (his deployment zone and yours), and the Priests and Termite Drill also scored him a turn of Linebreaker.
Realistically to present this type of puzzle you need to present a full image of the board state, two complete army lists, how much CP each player has left. This works best if you steal a scenario from a real battle report as then you can also show what actually happened and how it worked out. With the above example, we're still given far too little information to actually make a sound call as to what the optimal choice would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: So, what we might, ultimately, be getting at, is that (1) 40K is a game heavily contingent on pre-game planning and deployment (strategy); (2) that while there are tactical decisions to make in the game, (3) due to the structure of the mission, board size, game length, there are relatively limited opportunities for "changing your strategy" mid-game in ways that actually impact the result. Perhaps that's where the game's greatest weakness lies. It's not a matter of not having tactics, it is rather a matter that shifting strategies is pretty difficult.
I agree with this but would also like to add that the strategies that can be shifted to are all picked from a pretty shallow pool and often making the right call is simply a matter of knowing the rules well enough to not fall into a trap. As such I think it's fair to say that, from the perspective of a skilled player, tactics don't exist in any kind of exciting or particularly meaningful way.
And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
Lance845 wrote: Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that you could see what I was trying to say.
Reducing table size is especially bad since it de facto devalues Range Profiles and Movement stats, which is one of the best way to actually weight skill difference between two players.
What a stupid change, if I wanted to have an AoS mid brawl experience I would have played that game
You can thank melee only players for this. They wanted to hit things with guns with swords and this is what you get. A game where the strongest army in the game melees farther than you can shoot (quinns). Now you have the reverse problem. Why bring guns when I can melee you turn 1 and ignore your firepower with rules that completely ignore most weapons perks. Invunes and -1 to hit and wound.
What's this nonsense? 'Melee players' (whoever that mythical group is supposed to include) didn't influence squat, let alone make this happen. GW's new default board size took everyone* by surprise and there's no rhyme or reason to it.
*almost everyone. Some of the playtest groups obviously knew and the predatory gangs like Frontline were certainly posed to sell new gaming mats early. Its certainly easier to 'fill up' the board with the handful of terrain pieces in tournaments at this size (but still doesn't really fix the Planet Bowling Ball problem). Why not blame them if you're going to randomly accuse people that aren't GW for changes to GW rules?
Because that's just as stupid. The idea that Frontline Gaming got GW to change table sizes in order to sell new mats is even less likely than it being a result of people who play melee armies complaining. Did they use insider info to their advantage, yes it's highly likely they did. But it's asinine to think they were responsible for the change.
They changed the table size to match the kill team boards. It's not a grand conspiracy, it's likely a quirk of some international package shipping law.
It sure would be cool if we had more to do on defense. Like when a unit gets targeted they could lie prone or dive for cover. Or at the very least - we could have chance to cast defensive powers...defensively.
Indeed. There's a lot that could be done in 40k even with an IGOUGO system, though a lot of the really cool stuff - like having effects on hits and making wounds far rarer than they currently are - could easily break the current system as player 1 could debuff your army. A fix might be that player one gets has a penalty to their attacks that vastly limits how effective they can be in a turn one blitz, but that's just a spitballed idea without a lot of thought behind it and might swing things too much towards player 2.
Well, we did have exactly that option with the "go to ground" in 5th-7th edition
And FWIW, ProHammer has ramped up these "response actions" quite a bit to give the player on defense some decisions. To lay out a few specifics:
(*) ProHammer has an option for old-school style overwatch. You can place a unit on overwatch and it will fire during the "first fire" phase of your opponents shooting phase next turn. So that's one tactical choice added: Do I shoot now on my turn or defer until a better target maybe moves into range (or does putting something on overwatch change your opponent's plan!)
(*) Speaking of first fire: Units that don't move shoot first (relevant in a moment), alternating with any units on overwatch. After all first fire + overwatch shooting attacks are resolved, we go to normal shooting.
(*) In normal shooting, a unit hit by normal fire may take reactive fire OR go to ground (or do nothing). Reactive fire returns fire and resolves wounds simultaneously with the shooting unit. The downside is that if you take reactive fire you suffer in close combat AND your shooting next turn is limited to snap fire only. But it frequently is a tricky choice. Reactive fire itself has some limitations (limits on the number of shots per model, limited range, etc.)
(*) When getting charged, units receiving the charge (defending) have a choice whether to stand and shoot (which triggers reactive fire unless they already shot this turn) or to hold the line and fight normally. This creates some interesting situations where you might be trying to setup multiple charges so that you draw out reactive fire against fodder units (or really tough units) to protect more fragile melee units. Reactive fire hinders your CC abilities. Granted in most cases it can be clear cut which way to go, but sometimes it's a tricky choice when unit's are evenly matched.
(*) When you force an enemy unit to break in melee (and fallback), you have a choice of whether to pursue or consolidate, contingent on a leadership test. Pursuit isn't quite as lethal and there are trade offs involved.
(*) More broadly, we've limited split fire (can only split fire once per unit on a successful Ld test) - so frequently there is head scratching about how much fire to apply to what target.
(*) ProHammer also uses declared fire - meaning you need to do declare all your shooting targets first, and then resolve them. This makes it much more difficult (tactical) as you can't take the "wait and see" approach to sequencing shooting.
(*) Last - there is the option to play with NO premeasuring (which we've started to do). This adds uncertainty to whether certain actions will be successful or not (crap, I'm out of range!) which means that you need to commit to making moves or declaring fire without knowing exactly how it will go. Since you can't pre-measure you can't make such cut optimal decisions all of the time. This adds a lot of important judgement calls to the gameplay - and while maybe not "tactics" is still an element of skill and risk management.
Spoletta wrote: Having many variables doesn't make it not solvable.
Solving for the hidden variables would be difficult. Even if you had every card ranked for every possible board and hand state the fact that you know so little about your opponent's hands could easily make the game unsolvable.
Consider that from the start of a standard game you get to pick from a pool of 10 cards and your opponents all do the same, thus you've seen 10 of 137 cards in the projects deck as have your opponents. As the values of cards change based on which other cards you see and which cards your opponents have you can't yet accurately judge the value of your cards. You can make an educated guess and probably formulate a basic plan with what you know but your error bars on card values will be massive. Once players buy cards, usually between 2 and 6 cards, the rest goes to the discard pile leaving the main deck holding 97 cards. A first turn isn't usually huge as income is low and many cards can't yet be played so you might see each player play out 1 or 2 cards and take an action, you know 3 to 6 of your opponent's cards, have twice that in unknown cards in players hands and roughly that same number of discarded cards. Playing the draft variant - for maximum player interaction - you're then dealt 4 cards, you pick 1 and pass three over, pick one of them, and so on. Thus you see 9 of 16 cards creating 5 more hidden cards. This isn't to add in any political maneuvers and prisoner's dilemma scenarios at the table where your optimal play might only be optimal if another player does or doesn't take an action.
Due to the hidden knowledge, the constant fluctuation of the value of your cards, even within a round of play, and your optimal plays being dependant on your opponent's plays I don't think this style of game can be solved in the way that a game without hidden information can be.
Hidden knowledge doesn't make things unsolvable, just harder to solve.
There will always be one move which is statistically better than the other ones.
ERJAK wrote: And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
There are a few reasons:
1) Most players only play 1 or fewer games per week.
2) Most players don't even grasp the game's rules let alone any interactions between them - see tripointing and making unarmed attacks as an example.
3) Most players don't think that hard about the game as it's a casual hobby for them and not something where improving their gameplay is a priority.
The average 40k player is like an Iron LoL player but worse because they also have the ability to misplay rules and will play vastly fewer games of 40k than even a very casual player will play of LoL in the same span.
And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
Spoletta wrote: Hidden knowledge doesn't make things unsolvable, just harder to solve.
There will always be one move which is statistically better than the other ones.
This is true, but you can't solve for the value of a card which is dependent on which cards another player has. For example, a card you play that raises the O2 level has a chance to change nothing for your opponents, but it could also enable another player to play a card without taking another action first. So while you could apply a modifier to your card value based on the information you have it will be extremely vague - especially in the early turns where you have much less information to work with. You also can't solve for a player in 4th with no shot at a win playing spoiler and trying to hamper the player in first more than they're trying to improve their own chances of taking 2nd or 3rd.
The level of player interaction combined with the hidden info makes the game unsolvable; just one or the other wouldn't have this effect.
And yet, the vast majority of players are not skilled players and fail utterly at tactics a skilled player apparently wouldn't even think of as exciting or particularly meaningful.
This is the thing that often gets me about the '40k has very shallow tactics' thing is that; if that's true, why are people still so bad at it?
For a number of reasons.
1. They don't actually think about the game much. Often this means they don't even fully know the rules. Sometimes it means they don't really see 40k as a hugely competitive endeavour in the first place and treat it more as a social event. It often means they get blindsided by stratagems they didn't know existed. Personally I hate stratagems for that reason - you shouldn't have to memorise a whole bunch of information about other people's armies to play well.
2. They write bad army lists. Since 40k places so much emphasis on the army list rather than tactics on the table this is a major barrier for most people getting better. Most players don't try to collect the most competitive stuff for their army. Instead they get the units that look cool, then maybe start trying to build a decent list from there. If you're behind before the game starts there's little incentive to get better. Most players also don't sink lots of money into the game to chase the meta so they can have a perfectly competitive army one moment, and a pile of trash after an edition or Codex change.
3. A lot of people seem to be bad at self-appraisal and learning from their mistakes. Even among players who I know are trying to improve their problem is often that they refuse to acknowledge their own errors and blame outside influences or concoct reasons why they lost other than their own lack of skill. Often this manifests in players declaring certain units or armies broken, or lamenting bad dice every single game rather than reflecting on their losses properly.
4. Linked to that, some people frown upon the very idea of taking 40k seriously. They'd go so far as to call tri-pointing "gamey" or poor sportsmanship, for example.
A month ago I was Deputy Comd for a Mech Brigade HQ on a computer assisted exercise. I will briefly describe something and ask you to characterize it. For the last two days I was the Comd. Our mission had transitioned to guarding the right flank of the Division. Frontage was stretched beyond norms. My orders to the units were roughly;
“X Bde will guard the Division right flank...I will delay enemy Brigade-sized elements for two hours. I will destroy battalion sized elements. I will accept risk in the north. I will not allow penetration of the xx Easting....We will guard three up with Recce screening South and East. The guard forces will provide warning and destroy up to coy sized elms within resources. Guard battalions will fix enemy battalions. I will use Bde CounterMoves to destroy enemy battalions and neutralize enemy brigades....”
In the CAX the enemy did try to penetrate on two axis (what we had assessed as Most Dangerous). I deployed the CMoves on the main enemy thrust, but kept a small reserve in case what I assessed to the the enemy fixing force turned out to be his main effort after all. Enemy was destroyed (well, rendered combat ineffective).
How would you characterize my words in quotes in your lexicon?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Lance,A month ago I was Deputy Comd for a Mech Brigade HQ on a computer assisted exercise. I will briefly describe something and ask you to characterize it. For the last two days I was the Comd. Our mission had transitioned to guarding the right flank of the Division. Frontage was stretched beyond norms. My orders to the units were roughly;
“X Bde will guard the Division right flank...I will delay enemy Brigade-sized elements for two hours. I will destroy battalion sized elements. I will accept risk in the north. I will not allow penetration of the xx Easting....We will guard three up with Recce screening South and East. The guard forces will provide warning and destroy up to coy sized elms within resources. Guard battalions will fix enemy battalions. I will use Bde CounterMoves to destroy enemy battalions and neutralize enemy brigades....”
In the CAX the enemy did try to penetrate on two axis (what we had assessed as Most Dangerous). I deployed the CMoves on the main enemy thrust, but kept a small reserve in case what I assessed to the the enemy fixing force turned out to be his main effort after all. Enemy was destroyed (well, rendered combat ineffective).
How would you characterize my words in quotes in your lexicon?
Those are all strategic level decisions and as a commander that is the level, you should be working at.
Tactics are what a Lt. or Sgt. will use when their section is in the field. Things like training their soldiers to avoid isolated cover and avoid cresting rises so they can employ those tactics on the next exercise or deployment. There are no such elements to a game of 40k.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Lance,A month ago I was Deputy Comd for a Mech Brigade HQ on a computer assisted exercise. I will briefly describe something and ask you to characterize it. For the last two days I was the Comd. Our mission had transitioned to guarding the right flank of the Division. Frontage was stretched beyond norms. My orders to the units were roughly;
“X Bde will guard the Division right flank...I will delay enemy Brigade-sized elements for two hours. I will destroy battalion sized elements. I will accept risk in the north. I will not allow penetration of the xx Easting....We will guard three up with Recce screening South and East. The guard forces will provide warning and destroy up to coy sized elms within resources. Guard battalions will fix enemy battalions. I will use Bde CounterMoves to destroy enemy battalions and neutralize enemy brigades....”
In the CAX the enemy did try to penetrate on two axis (what we had assessed as Most Dangerous). I deployed the CMoves on the main enemy thrust, but kept a small reserve in case what I assessed to the the enemy fixing force turned out to be his main effort after all. Enemy was destroyed (well, rendered combat ineffective).
How would you characterize my words in quotes in your lexicon?
Those are all strategic level decisions and as a commander that is the level, you should be working at.
Tactics are what a Lt. or Sgt. will use when their section is in the field. Things like training their soldiers to avoid isolated cover and avoid cresting rises so they can employ those tactics on the next exercise or deployment. There are no such elements to a game of 40k.
Bingo.
You laid out your strategy. The troops then use their tactics to execute it in pursuit of mission objectives.
The strategy is your over all plan. Tactics are the individual moves you make in pursuit of specific goals. It's really not that difficult. It's also LITERALLY the dictionary definition. This isn't MY lexicon. It's the English language.
Would you be surprised to learn that the doctrine manual that provided guidance is called “Brigade Tactics?”
What I laid out was my mission and concept of operations. It’s a plan, not a strategy. Strategy is at a much higher level on a very different time scale. If you are in contact with the enemy you are in the realm of tactics. A Corps might talk about Operations.
Planning is important. But if you are making a plan for troops in contact you are talking about tactics. Corporations talk about strategy - it’s s powerful word. That’s fine. You can call your plan for a game of 40k your strategy, but at the end of the day it’s a tactical plan. It might be an awesome plan based on your visualization of how the game will unfold. But it’s a visualization of tactics. You can’t make that plan without a deep understanding of tactics.
Again, you can call it what you want. You seem to equate planning with Strategy and execution with Tactics. If i said my Brigade conops was strategy it would elicit some chuckles from my colleagues. If I was feeling grand I might talk about my design, but really it was just a plan. A tactical plan.
Is the planning stage of a 40k game important? Absolutely! But you can’t make that plan without knowing the tactics. The plan is tactics visualized.
Strategy and tactics aren't confined to any particular level of organization and are crucially dependent on context. Squad level tactics, company level tactics, brigade level tactics, etc, and each level can develop it's own operational strategy.
"The plan is tactics visualized." That's an intetesting statement. I think there's a degree of resolution implied there, whereas a strategy is a high level plan without the details necessarily worked out.
Deployment - Necrons vs a prototypical White Scars list. I'm not going to bother modeling everything - just the key pieces though almost all the WS army is on the board. This mission is Hold 1/Hold 2, so I will focus on scoring at least 10 and prevent my opponent from getting "more".
Spoiler:
WS Turn 1 - Nothing to note - WS move up
Spoiler:
Necrons Turn 1 - I backpedal Warriors #1 to be out of range of the incoming VV. The Night Scythe pivots and runs along the board edge to avoid coming into range of as many attack bikes as possible. I focus on damaging the far right Infiltrators.
Spoiler:
WS Turn 2 - VV engage and everything else moves into place. The lone attack bike moves to prevent leaving the objective totally up for grabs.
Spoiler:
Necrons Turn 2 - I teleport Warriors 1 off. My Night Scythe pivots and drops off Lychguard. I am now in position for Linebreaker and I also control essentially permanently control two objectives. VV1 has been drawn too far in and its only best option may be to sit where they are and hope there's enough stretch in other units. The other Infiltrators if alive can cap and objective so they're going to be high priority depending how shooting and combat goes.
Spoiler:
This was all under the premise where I didn't really care what else I killed. As long as I was able to make a hole for deepstriking / Night Scythe then those units would be priority and every move was to make the opponent's units as useless as possible.
Spoletta wrote: Hidden knowledge doesn't make things unsolvable, just harder to solve.
There will always be one move which is statistically better than the other ones.
This is true, but you can't solve for the value of a card which is dependent on which cards another player has. For example, a card you play that raises the O2 level has a chance to change nothing for your opponents, but it could also enable another player to play a card without taking another action first. So while you could apply a modifier to your card value based on the information you have it will be extremely vague - especially in the early turns where you have much less information to work with. You also can't solve for a player in 4th with no shot at a win playing spoiler and trying to hamper the player in first more than they're trying to improve their own chances of taking 2nd or 3rd.
The level of player interaction combined with the hidden info makes the game unsolvable; just one or the other wouldn't have this effect.
I'm pretty sure that you can still solve it, but we would have to go into the technicalities of a game I know only by name, so I will just drop this.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Again, you can call it what you want. You seem to equate planning with Strategy and execution with Tactics. If i said my Brigade conops was strategy it would elicit some chuckles from my colleagues. If I was feeling grand I might talk about my design, but really it was just a plan. A tactical plan.
Well said. Too much of this thread got bogged down in semantics; which are important for online discussion, to be able to communicate clearly, but too often there is a wilful lack of understanding as people get hung up on definitions. Which can be valuable in getting to the nub of the matter but all too often descend into repitition.
Anyway.... a nevertheless fascinating discussion that gives some insight into what the nuts and bolts of the game actually are, and just as important, how people think about it.
If I could add anything, it would be the irrelavant point that although this is a strategic, tactical, dice-based wargame with strict rules mechanics, we should not overlook the fact that it is also a role-playing game, and a lot of deicisions, both in list building and on the table, are based on this.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Would you be surprised to learn that the doctrine manual that provided guidance is called “Brigade Tactics?”
What I laid out was my mission and concept of operations. It’s a plan, not a strategy. Strategy is at a much higher level on a very different time scale. If you are in contact with the enemy you are in the realm of tactics. A Corps might talk about Operations.
Planning is important. But if you are making a plan for troops in contact you are talking about tactics. Corporations talk about strategy - it’s s powerful word. That’s fine. You can call your plan for a game of 40k your strategy, but at the end of the day it’s a tactical plan. It might be an awesome plan based on your visualization of how the game will unfold. But it’s a visualization of tactics. You can’t make that plan without a deep understanding of tactics.
Again, you can call it what you want. You seem to equate planning with Strategy and execution with Tactics. If i said my Brigade conops was strategy it would elicit some chuckles from my colleagues. If I was feeling grand I might talk about my design, but really it was just a plan. A tactical plan.
Is the planning stage of a 40k game important? Absolutely! But you can’t make that plan without knowing the tactics. The plan is tactics visualized.
That does make sense when put that way. A strategy is a long-term direction to plan around while tactics are immediate-term plans to be enacted in accordance with the strategy.
In any case, much of what you presented in your last post are the kinds of things that I've been saying do exist in 40k. Building a list with a win condition in mind, deciding how to deploy it in response to the opponent's force and mission and then applying these to your engagements with the enemy. Obviously, you can't just play 40k based on how you pictured the battle unfolding and will need to make reactions on the tabletop but the argument I've been making is that those correct calls will be obvious to a skilled player and that much of the 'depth' in 40k goes away once you understand the game's rules and the way missions are won.
Daedalus81 wrote: Deployment - Necrons vs a prototypical White Scars list. I'm not going to bother modeling everything - just the key pieces though almost all the WS army is on the board. This mission is Hold 1/Hold 2, so I will focus on scoring at least 10 and prevent my opponent from getting "more".
<the rest of the post has been removed due to its size>
Let me start off by saying thank you for the clear and concise diagrams. It makes it much easier to understand the situation you're describing on the tabletop in a way that none of the other descriptions of a board state have managed. If more players were willing to put in the effort and put forth specific scenarios we'd have a lot more discussion of gameplay level decisions on Dakka.
As for the scenario, might I ask what model count you were running your warriors in, what they were armed with and if you had any reserves in this game. I only ask because I feel like the stronger play would have been to move something from reserves onto the point you teleported your 1st block of warriors to while using a unit of Reaper warriors to try to claim the objective closest to your 2nd warrior unit who could then aim to remove the INF unit and secure and additional objective marker with a tough to shift unit while also leaving the BGVs and VV 1 completely out of options for further impacting the game due to how isolated they are.
Let me start off by saying thank you for the clear and concise diagrams. It makes it much easier to understand the situation you're describing on the tabletop in a way that none of the other descriptions of a board state have managed. If more players were willing to put in the effort and put forth specific scenarios we'd have a lot more discussion of gameplay level decisions on Dakka.
Yea, I wish there was a tool to make them though. Such a pain. And everything can change with a different deployment, opponent, etc.
As for the scenario, might I ask what model count you were running your warriors in, what they were armed with and if you had any reserves in this game. I only ask because I feel like the stronger play would have been to move something from reserves onto the point you teleported your 1st block of warriors to while using a unit of Reaper warriors to try to claim the objective closest to your 2nd warrior unit who could then aim to remove the INF unit and secure and additional objective marker with a tough to shift unit while also leaving the BGVs and VV 1 completely out of options for further impacting the game due to how isolated they are.
Totally plausible, yea. That represents about 1,200 points of Necrons on the table ( 2x20 Warriors, 2x9 Scarabs, 1x5 LG, NS ). There would still be a bunch of other stuff floating around. The biggest concern for me is that VV go BRRRT on warriors if you're not careful and you won't get a chance to reanimate.
Which reminds me of another tactical note for playing marines - make absolutely sure you position characters with room to HI when you get charged. You do NOT want marines picking up more attacks with a counter charge the next round.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea, I wish there was a tool to make them though. Such a pain. And everything can change with a different deployment, opponent, etc.
*nods* If there was a premade tool for making snapshots of a battlefield that would be great. It's a shame that the projects that were running in vassal all seem to be shut down or else that might do the trick.
Totally plausible, yea. That represents about 1,200 points of Necrons on the table ( 2x20 Warriors, 2x9 Scarabs, 1x5 LG, NS ). There would still be a bunch of other stuff floating around. The biggest concern for me is that VV go BRRRT on warriors if you're not careful and you won't get a chance to reanimate.
That also makes sense. You can't afford to lose a brick of warriors in exchange for maybe a turn of holding an objective, those other 800 points of models would likely tell which move would be the correct choice.
Insectum7 wrote: Strategy and tactics aren't confined to any particular level of organization and are crucially dependent on context. Squad level tactics, company level tactics, brigade level tactics, etc, and each level can develop it's own operational strategy.
This is part of the critique about modern western militaries that I mentioned before. There is a belief that Generals do strategy and grunts do tactics and that strategy and tactics *are* confined to a particular level of organization. This has resulted in the stunted development of strategic thinking and ability amongst generals and higher ranking officers, as they fail to learn and develop anything other than tactical acumen in their formative phases and are often still grappling with trying to comprehend operational art when they get thrust into a role that requires strategy.
Insectum7 wrote: Strategy and tactics aren't confined to any particular level of organization and are crucially dependent on context. Squad level tactics, company level tactics, brigade level tactics, etc, and each level can develop it's own operational strategy.
This is part of the critique about modern western militaries that I mentioned before. There is a belief that Generals do strategy and grunts do tactics and that strategy and tactics *are* confined to a particular level of organization. This has resulted in the stunted development of strategic thinking and ability amongst generals and higher ranking officers, as they fail to learn and develop anything other than tactical acumen in their formative phases and are often still grappling with trying to comprehend operational art when they get thrust into a role that requires strategy.
At the risk of thread derailment, most western militaries have the tactical, operational and strategic levels. Strategy involves national aims. The operational level deals with campaigns. Tactical involves battles and engagements. I was in a Div HQ on a Corps exercise in a conventional setting - the Corps considered itself at the tactical level.
I would rather spend time training new officers to command their platoons. We teach the estimate process for planning. Some elements of the estimate could be useful in 40k.
We learn company level tactics after a couple of years, followed by battalion and brigade when most have been Captains for about five years (so late 20s). They get exposed to operational planning and campaign design. Majors take a year long course that deals with the operational level and campaign design. Strategy is also discussed. Colonels take another year long course on strategy. Experience also matters. Much of the recent critique concerns officers brought up on conventional fighting who then had to command on counter insurgency. Now we are wondering if we need to go back to more conventional training.
Anyhoo. Articles about planning for 40k games could be useful.
If you make a google document and then insert a drawing, it opens up an embedded diagramming tool. I used this a bunch for ProHammer to make the deployment maps.
I could see making a google doc template that has one diagram with various unit and terrain features and the deployment maps. You can setup up the terrain approximately, delete the extra objects that's aren't needed. If you do the first turn/step, you can copy the drawing and when you edit it makes a new version, so you can incrementally tweak each step if trying to show multiple tactical steps.
This has me motivated to maybe put something together as a tool
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the curious, here is a blog article I wrote the other week prior to starting this thread. It's about the design of ProHammer and covers some similar topics as here:
And yet if you go back far enough in history (and you really don't need to go very far...) you see Corps were responsible for planning, managing, and executing at the Operational level (and in some cases at the strategic level).
Just because the US military has decided to ignore what the words mean or decided to organize themselves differently doesn't change what the words actually mean or their relevance when discussing the game.
And yet if you go back far enough in history (and you really don't need to go very far...) you see Corps were responsible for planning, managing, and executing at the Operational level (and in some cases at the strategic level).
The Corps in this case was fighting a battle (conventional peer on peer). The Corps Commander was manoeuvring divisions in contact. The Operational level deals with campaigns. The same Corps was at the Operational level in Afghanistan.
Lance845 wrote: Just because the US military has decided to ignore what the words mean or decided to organize themselves differently doesn't change what the words actually mean or their relevance when discussing the game.
Sure, but playing around with words doesn't mean Warhammer is devoid of mental engagement. A rose by any other name...
Does Warhammer offer the opportunity for challenging thought? Yes. Is that universal on every game? Likely not, but the opportunity exists moreso now than ever. Is it ultra deep tactical thinking? No and it doesn't need to be. There's a difference between playing a board game sitting down as opposed to standing for ten hours for three rounds of Warhammer and expecting every second to be jam packed with decision after decision - it would be extremely exhausting.
I get to design my force in a way that I can envision the broader tactical moves I will make and how that force enables me to better score specific objectives ( primary and secondary ) . I can bolster the plan in motion to try and ensure success. I have to balance scoring primaries, secondaries, and denying my opponent's secondaries. I have to adapt to losses and squeeze out the best score I can with resources and units running low.
Lance845 wrote: Just because the US military has decided to ignore what the words mean or decided to organize themselves differently doesn't change what the words actually mean or their relevance when discussing the game.
Sure, but playing around with words doesn't mean Warhammer is devoid of mental engagement. A rose by any other name...
Does Warhammer offer the opportunity for challenging thought? Yes. Is that universal on every game? Likely not, but the opportunity exists moreso now than ever.
I have seen this argument. 40k is without a doubt leagues better then it was in 7th 6th etc.. Being way better doesn't make it good. The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.
Is it ultra deep tactical thinking? No and it doesn't need to be. There's a difference between playing a board game sitting down as opposed to standing for ten hours for three rounds of Warhammer and expecting every second to be jam packed with decision after decision - it would be extremely exhausting.
I feel like a wargame SHOULD be. Whats the point of a wargame devoid of deep tactical thinking?
I get to design my force in a way that I can envision the broader tactical moves I will make and how that force enables me to better score specific objectives ( primary and secondary ) . I can bolster the plan in motion to try and ensure success. I have to balance scoring primaries, secondaries, and denying my opponent's secondaries. I have to adapt to losses and squeeze out the best score I can with resources and units running low.
For me? Warhammer is fun and engaging.
I am glad you enjoy it. Thats not sarcasm. I legit am happy for anyone to enjoy whatever they enjoy. Like what you like. Like it to the extent you like it. My arguments are never against your personal enjoyment. My arguments are against the products quality and character. I like and even love some really bad movies. My enjoyment of them doesn't make the movie any better.
It isn't devoid of it. You just don't get it at every action you take. Like I said - that level of game would be totally exhausting. The format doesn't fit that notion. Certainly there is more they can do to expand the scope a little, but they'll only go so far.
9th is not a simply solvable puzzle that one can just "shoot the right things" and win. That might have been more true early last edition and the ones prior.
I play Root, Through the Ages, Twilight Imperium, Agricola, Brass, Scythe, Burgundy, Power Grid. You know what gets played the least? Twilight - because it's really hard to get enough people to sit down for an extreme length game that is that involved let alone introduce a new player to the game. Root has this problem to an extent, too, because everyone has to learn how factions score and you wind up pleading with other players to stop a run away leader often.
I am not saying the game is devoid of tactical decisions. I am saying it is devoid of DEEP tactical thinking. And again, it is better then it was. But it's still not good.
It is still solvable. It is still simplistic. And your interactions with the other player are still next to null because of the very core structure of the game.
That review of TM comes from someone who has as little understanding of the difference between interacting with the other player versus interacting with the other players pieces as was argued in this thread. You can't have deep tactical thinking if you are not interacting with the other player/s.
My trouble with playing Twilight Imperium is not people wanting to play. It's TIME to play. TI is an event. You set aside a day for it. Thats not an issue with the level of strategy and tactics involved. Those who play love it. It's an issue of real world constraints that are not at all dissimilar to that of 40k. If I can play less games of 40k but have a significantly better time doing it because it's a more engaging game hands down I would take it every time. More games of a worse experience.... why? Why would I want that when I could have the other?
Yeah. I never understood the cheerleaders happy for moar faster games of less quality with more pieces that were all less important on smaller tables with hand painted terrain that didn’t matter...
2nd Ed was superior in every real way. I was hoping that 8th would be that with some tweaks... I was wrong and sadly disappointed.
I think one reason why people are reacting so strongly to what you are saying is, to an extent the manner you are phrasing your points.
You say that it isn't devoid of tactical decisions, but then say it's solvable, still simplistic, and interaction nearly null.
I think most people would agree with you that the game isn't that tactically deep. But there is a difference between "not deep" and being "solvable, simplistic, etc.". You seem to be saying both at once which doesn't come across as that genuine.
I think one reason why people are reacting so strongly to what you are saying is, to an extent the manner you are phrasing your points.
You say that it isn't devoid of tactical decisions, but then say it's solvable, still simplistic, and interaction nearly null.
I think most people would agree with you that the game isn't that tactically deep. But there is a difference between "not deep" and being "solvable, simplistic, etc.". You seem to be saying both at once which doesn't come across as that genuine.
I agree with this.
There's plenty of games which are "not deep", yet people play them regularly at competitive levels and international events are organized for them.
It simply changes what being good at them means. The "easier" the game, the higher the burden on not doing a single mistake during the whole game and the higher the burden on catching every error on your opponent's part. The "harder" the game, the higher the burden on making as many "correct" choices as possible.
Lance is moving the discussion forward imho. Hard distinctions call for clarification. The tactical strategic distinction introduced might not be universally accepted, but it maps handily onto table top interactions or lack thereof. Where people find it lacking, they must clarify their thinking. That motivates good discussion imho.
I think one reason why people are reacting so strongly to what you are saying is, to an extent the manner you are phrasing your points.
You say that it isn't devoid of tactical decisions, but then say it's solvable, still simplistic, and interaction nearly null.
I think most people would agree with you that the game isn't that tactically deep. But there is a difference between "not deep" and being "solvable, simplistic, etc.". You seem to be saying both at once which doesn't come across as that genuine.
I agree with this.
There's plenty of games which are "not deep", yet people play them regularly at competitive levels and international events are organized for them.
There's a world of difference of the cost of those games + the level of white khighting y'all do for GW
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There's a world of difference of the cost of those games + the level of white khighting y'all do for GW
I'm not sure what cost has to do with it since there's a hobby aspect to Warhammer and the miniatures in this games are well beyond most board games. X-Wing isn't exactly cheap. It just uses less models. 40K is supported to be played at 1K. How many people are clamoring to do that?
Aside from that have I said something that was not correct that constitutes white knighting?
Let's leave definitions to the side and perhaps discuss the times when player decisions impact their chances of winning. Choices are made when building the list, when making the plan and when executing the plan. It can useful to think of them as phases, but I also think a player needs to think of how their list is going to play on the tabletop when they build it so a player should think of how their list will play as they build it. Seems obvious, but I see it when people have either grabbed a list off the net or having only done the Theoryhammer on the units in a vacuum.
I think we can all agree that decisions made in list-building can help you win or hurt your chances of winning. Perhaps we can all agree that decisions made in the planning phase after you receive the mission and before the die-roll for going first will impact your chances of winning. Contrary to some, though, I find that there are plenty of decisions that I have to make during the execution phase that impact my chances of winning.
I played a 1500 Matched Play yesterday as part of a tourney warm-up. My opponent went first, and while my list had mobility I still had to adjust my plan as his plan was pretty much a counter to mine. Part of my Turn 1 decision-making was indeed somewhat straight-forward. Which unit(s) would I sacrifice to buy time and space for my killers, as well as garner enough Objective VPs before dying? At the mid-point of the game my opponent was essentially split into two elements, having gone for one of my exposed flanks. I had to decide between bolstering my collapsing flank or doubling down in the centre. Both had risks. I went for the centre. At the same time I had to decide when to go after his warlord (linked to Secondary VPs for me and him). I could have done so in the 3rd Turn, but it would have left my own completely exposed if it failed. I played somewhat conservatively and set myself up for a 4th turn charge, which my opponent himself made more difficult with his own manoeuvring. At the start of my 5th Turn I still had two viable courses of action open to me. One more conservative and one that was more risky but would garner many more VPs. I went for the risky one. These decisions were all made in response to things that my opponent did. I haven't discussed the impact of terrain on my play - plenty of obscuring terrain that was also impassible to me. I had to adapt to and exploit the board. This was true when I was planning but also when I was playing because my opponent was also manoeuvring on that table.
Then there are the positional things you have to do in the game with the details of pile-in, consolidate and model placement. There are procedural things to decide on like fight activation order and stratagem use. I had to make several decisions during that game regarding falling back and stratagem use. I also made some mistakes with model placement, hindering my own manoeuvre while also giving opportunities for my opponent to exploit. Which he did. I was playing a veteran, skillful player and we were certainly interacting with each other.
Maybe we are playing different games? Maybe I am just dumb? I think there are plenty of areas to discuss regarding things that happen after the die-roll for first turn that can be helpful for people.
I do see players not really playing to the mission, relying on power-combos and killing power without paying attention to primary objectives and secondaries. They kill some stuff and then find themselves with 15 or 20 VPs while their opponent has 70 to 80 VPs. Some of that can be mitigated with better planning, but it also takes execution.
Some mid game tactics are evident in that description, and it seems about what is expected.
Your “list-building” phase gives you resources to deploy according to role, sometimes finding that role on the fly.
Tactical, by the convention introduced in this thread. And skilful.
Deeply tactical, as introduced in this thread? What might be missing to provide this depth? What is part of the current game that detracts from that depth? These might be the next things to get clear on...
It sure would be cool if we had more to do on defense. Like when a unit gets targeted they could lie prone or dive for cover. Or at the very least - we could have chance to cast defensive powers...defensively.
Indeed. There's a lot that could be done in 40k even with an IGOUGO system, though a lot of the really cool stuff - like having effects on hits and making wounds far rarer than they currently are - could easily break the current system as player 1 could debuff your army. A fix might be that player one gets has a penalty to their attacks that vastly limits how effective they can be in a turn one blitz, but that's just a spitballed idea without a lot of thought behind it and might swing things too much towards player 2.
Well, we did have exactly that option with the "go to ground" in 5th-7th edition
And FWIW, ProHammer has ramped up these "response actions" quite a bit to give the player on defense some decisions.
To lay out a few specifics:
(*) ProHammer has an option for old-school style overwatch. You can place a unit on overwatch and it will fire during the "first fire" phase of your opponents shooting phase next turn. So that's one tactical choice added: Do I shoot now on my turn or defer until a better target maybe moves into range (or does putting something on overwatch change your opponent's plan!)
Spoiler:
(*) Speaking of first fire: Units that don't move shoot first (relevant in a moment), alternating with any units on overwatch. After all first fire + overwatch shooting attacks are resolved, we go to normal shooting.
(*) In normal shooting, a unit hit by normal fire may take reactive fire OR go to ground (or do nothing). Reactive fire returns fire and resolves wounds simultaneously with the shooting unit. The downside is that if you take reactive fire you suffer in close combat AND your shooting next turn is limited to snap fire only. But it frequently is a tricky choice. Reactive fire itself has some limitations (limits on the number of shots per model, limited range, etc.)
(*) When getting charged, units receiving the charge (defending) have a choice whether to stand and shoot (which triggers reactive fire unless they already shot this turn) or to hold the line and fight normally. This creates some interesting situations where you might be trying to setup multiple charges so that you draw out reactive fire against fodder units (or really tough units) to protect more fragile melee units. Reactive fire hinders your CC abilities. Granted in most cases it can be clear cut which way to go, but sometimes it's a tricky choice when unit's are evenly matched.
(*) When you force an enemy unit to break in melee (and fallback), you have a choice of whether to pursue or consolidate, contingent on a leadership test. Pursuit isn't quite as lethal and there are trade offs involved.
(*) More broadly, we've limited split fire (can only split fire once per unit on a successful Ld test) - so frequently there is head scratching about how much fire to apply to what target.
(*) ProHammer also uses declared fire - meaning you need to do declare all your shooting targets first, and then resolve them. This makes it much more difficult (tactical) as you can't take the "wait and see" approach to sequencing shooting.
(*) Last - there is the option to play with NO premeasuring (which we've started to do). This adds uncertainty to whether certain actions will be successful or not (crap, I'm out of range!) which means that you need to commit to making moves or declaring fire without knowing exactly how it will go. Since you can't pre-measure you can't make such cut optimal decisions all of the time. This adds a lot of important judgement calls to the gameplay - and while maybe not "tactics" is still an element of skill and risk management.
These would make the game more tactically deep and more demanding skill wise, for examples.
Pro hammer needs a publisher.
And, maybe the CP management aspect of the game actually detracts from depth. Maybe that is more of a skill, to maintain a strategy while using CP only when necessary to keep strategies on track?
jeff white wrote: Over watch at all is better than what passes for over watch now, imho.
We have posters here that forget their own units on the table imagine the hissy fit they'd throw if they missed a unit set for overwatch and got a unit blown away because of it...
jeff white wrote: Premeasuring... you mean removing it, disallowing it? Because guessing ranges would seem to be a skill, as written above.
Guessing was a skill of who was better at cheating the system in various ways. No that's just my arm on the table - I'm not measuring with my hand!
And then you were better or worse at charging depending on your models since that was simply a double move.
Over watch at all is better than what passes for over watch now, imho.
Not sure I agree as most people wouldn't forfeit shooting now over no move and a -1 penalty to shoot later. And again is an easily solvable item. Eradicators overwatching? Ok I'll just move everything they don't want to shoot and shoot them and force casualties before I move what they want to shoot.
It was fun and thematic when I was young. Perhaps it is better for that edition, because scoring = killing. Oh? I go first ( because I'm marines, literally ) and I deployed everything out in the open and you didn't? Everything in overwatch!
These rules existed in a time before people took the game more seriously ( as much as one might ). I don't think they would hold up very well. I could be wrong, but I don't think it would rise to the level of "deeper" in any case.
Back when the missions were Maelstrom, the best tactic was mobility. Didn’t really matter much about the unit tactics, the mobility is what won it and was the reason that Eldar was so dominant. Play the mission, not the opponent.
In 9th, the uncertainty of Maelstrom is replaced with absolute certainty of what is needed - this is why high-durability armies with low vulnerability to poorly-conceived secondaries do so well. As such when considering the tactics, again play the mission and cater your army to that effect.
Which is why we need more mission variety, so you can't plan for the mission. They've already done a good job mixing up how different factions are resilient to different weapon profiles so you can't just spam a certain type of weapon, now they need to write more missions which require different methods to score the most VP.
. If you can do it in a useful way without it becoming just an ongoing replies of "well what about this?" then I will congratulate you!
Or in 9th: Hmm, I probably should have taken this or that secondary instead of X.
