Lance845 wrote: Don't tell other people not to participate in a conversation just because they are correctly identifying issues and their scope with something you like. Nobody is saying you don't get to like a bad thing. I like lots of bad things. My liking it doesn't make it any less bad.
I'm not telling you not to participate "just because you're correctly identifying issues." I'm asking you, please, stop the constant negativity. Constructive criticism is one thing. Saying 40K sucks is not constructive, even if it were objectively correct, which it's not.
Instead of saying just, "X is an issue," say "and here's how I would fix it." When we're working together to make house rules, or even entire new rule sets, that make the game better, things are okay. When it's just two or three (or four) people who, for all the world, appear to want to make OTHER PEOPLE stop playing the game, then it's a problem.
Let us enjoy what we enjoy, and if there are aspects you don't enjoy, then suggest how to change them. And I don't mean just, "scrap 40k and restart from the ground up," because while that MAY be what is required to fix the issues you have identified as problems, it's not helpful.
Lance845 wrote: I would love to watch brain take a game design class and argue with the teacher that the illusion of choice doesn't exist because its still a choice.
brain isn't saying illusion of choice doesn't exist, he's saying that your application of the term to the entirety of the on-table gameplay is erroneous, which it is.
But i never applied it to the entirety of the experience. I used words like "mostly". Or terms like "next to no meaningful decisions".
The game is not a vacuum devoid of game play. But what game play is there is so shallow and so little that its "closer to chutes and ladders than not".
You taking those statements and cutting out the qualifiers to read them as definitive absolutes is on you.
Lance845 wrote: The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Seems to me, a few posts back, you DID exactly say the game has no meaningful choices.
Hmm.
I don't think I'm going to be able to shift your perspective, so I'm going to stop trying. I hope everyone else will cease engaging as well, but I can't control their decisions; only mine. And I decide to enjoy what I have and derive pleasure from it to the best of my ability, as is my right and responsibility.
I won't try to argue that there's no depth to 40k, and no choices, just that there's really not much, but the reason your 4 year old cant 40k, is probably because of the massive amount of rules to know. Rules which aren't always choices, but acts of remembering.
Lance845 wrote: I would love to watch brain take a game design class and argue with the teacher that the illusion of choice doesn't exist because its still a choice.
brain isn't saying illusion of choice doesn't exist, he's saying that your application of the term to the entirety of the on-table gameplay is erroneous, which it is.
+1
Exactly. I took a game design class, stuck with business software because I didn't want the pay cut I DM for my group, and giving them the illusion of choice is really difficult.
But Lance845, you are partially correct, there's not an infinite choice of do whatever you want. But that's true everywhere, not just in 40K. Pick any video game, any board game, card game, or even DnD. You don't have the ability to do whatever you want, and we don't want that either.
I played DnD with a DM who would let the players do anything they wanted, and it turned me off DnD for 20 years. At the same time, we don't want to be railroaded into 1 style of play with 1 army list. In 40K, we have neither restriction. We are limited to 30ish armies, with tons of varied options.
In 40K, if (and this is a big if) you only look at net lists, trying to find the most powerful army, then yes, you and your opponent are more limited. However, not playing against top tier army net list opens a world of possibilities. As stated, I play IG, so almost every decision matters. I do this intentionally to make me a better player. If I'm playing someone less experienced, I talk about what I'm doing, I play to intent, ask my opponents if they meant to do what looks to be a mistake to me, etc.
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.
You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.
The army I have the most experience with is tyranids. I have never played a "point and shoot" army. With Nids at least.
Nice strawman though. Did it take you long to make?
Thadin wrote: I won't try to argue that there's no depth to 40k, and no choices, just that there's really not much, but the reason your 4 year old cant 40k, is probably because of the massive amount of rules to know. Rules which aren't always choices, but acts of remembering.
I disagree completely with that statement. Not that my 4yo is some sort of a memorization whiz, mind you, but that if he were a mem-whiz I have total faith that I'd utterly trounce him at 40K, because there's a lot of on-table contextual knowledge that many experienced players start taking for granted.
Experienced wargame players often don't really realize/acknowledge how much they know/contextualize. There's a term for this that corresponds to professional knowledge too, I think. I can't recall it off the top of my head.
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.
You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.
The army I have the most experience with is tyranids. I have never played a "point and shoot" army. With Nids at least.
Nice strawman though. Did it take you long to make?
What strawman? Some armies/units really are easier to play than others. Some units you have to work harder for to get value out of them. You even allude to this in your "never played a point and shoot army" statement.
Thadin wrote: I won't try to argue that there's no depth to 40k, and no choices, just that there's really not much, but the reason your 4 year old cant 40k, is probably because of the massive amount of rules to know. Rules which aren't always choices, but acts of remembering.
I disagree completely with that statement. Not that my 4yo is some sort of a memorization whiz, mind you, but that if he were a mem-whiz I have total faith that I'd utterly trounce him at 40K, because there's a lot of on-table contextual knowledge that many experienced players start taking for granted.
Experienced wargame players often don't really realize/acknowledge how much they know/contextualize. There's a term for this that corresponds to professional knowledge too, I think. I can't recall it off the top of my head.
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.
You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.
The army I have the most experience with is tyranids. I have never played a "point and shoot" army. With Nids at least.
Nice strawman though. Did it take you long to make?
What strawman? Some armies/units really are easier to play than others. Some units you have to work harder for to get value out of them. You even allude to this in your "never played a point and shoot army" statement.
The implication in your post is that somehow people who take "point and shoot" lists are the ones complaining about a lack of decision making. I play nids and don't play those lists. I still feel there is a lack of decision making.
The implication in your post is that somehow people who take "point and shoot" lists are the ones complaining about a lack of decision making. I play nids and don't play those lists. I still feel there is a lack of decision making.
Could there be more decision making? Sure. Would I personally like more decision making? I would, if they were the right sorts of decisions that I prefer (aka not when to pop a stupid Strat). But to say the the game lacks on-table decision making is a poor generalization.
But if you feel like you're on autopilot I'd still seriously consider changing up lists. I've long been a proponent of Tactical Squads precisely because they're not "point-and-shoot" units, for example. My "all Warrior" Tyranid army was a kind of joke list, and it was pretty brain-dead to play, although still surprisingly effective for a while.
I know the term you mean Insectum, can't recall it either. Guess we're not fancy word professionals
But, I do agree that there is a lot of contextual things that we as players pick up, and over time, it becomes "how to play the game" rather than "How to play the game properly". Perhaps it's a difference in word understanding that's leading to that disconnect. I've played long enough that the Choices have stopped being Choices, and they're just how to correctly play the game.
Thats because 40k os complicated. Complication /= depth or choice. It only means complicated.
Already been addressed and you're late to the party, my man. I would argue that if you think there are no meaningful on-table choices to 40k, you are not a good player, or do not think that there are players who could be much better than you. When the same group of people win tournaments time and time again, it sorta proves the opposite of your point.
Lance845 wrote: I would love to watch brain take a game design class and argue with the teacher that the illusion of choice doesn't exist because its still a choice.
brain isn't saying illusion of choice doesn't exist, he's saying that your application of the term to the entirety of the on-table gameplay is erroneous, which it is.
+1
Exactly. I took a game design class, stuck with business software because I didn't want the pay cut I DM for my group, and giving them the illusion of choice is really difficult.
But Lance845, you are partially correct, there's not an infinite choice of do whatever you want. But that's true everywhere, not just in 40K. Pick any video game, any board game, card game, or even DnD. You don't have the ability to do whatever you want, and we don't want that either.
I played DnD with a DM who would let the players do anything they wanted, and it turned me off DnD for 20 years. At the same time, we don't want to be railroaded into 1 style of play with 1 army list. In 40K, we have neither restriction. We are limited to 30ish armies, with tons of varied options.
In 40K, if (and this is a big if) you only look at net lists, trying to find the most powerful army, then yes, you and your opponent are more limited. However, not playing against top tier army net list opens a world of possibilities. As stated, I play IG, so almost every decision matters. I do this intentionally to make me a better player. If I'm playing someone less experienced, I talk about what I'm doing, I play to intent, ask my opponents if they meant to do what looks to be a mistake to me, etc.
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
I'm finding a hard time thinking of any game where this doesn't apply. Could you give an example of a game where this is not true?
Basically how I feel. And I feel as though this doesn't proclude(word choice?) the dominance of certain Pro Players who place high every tournament. They understand the game better than I do, better than most people do, so their choices are closer to the 100-point choice, than my choices that I think may be the 100-pt choice, but are actually the 75 or the 50.
Then there's the factors about desire to play that way, and ability to play that way via disposable income to factor in. I don't want to, and probably can't live the lifestyle of Sean Nayden, for many reasons.
its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
I'm finding a hard time thinking of any game where this doesn't apply. Could you give an example of a game where this is not true?
Take this with a grain of salt as I have no experience with it, but previously, XWing was mentioned in this thread about a game that does utilize tactics over strategy.
However, an example that is unachievable on tabletop games by and large, would be RTS games. Apologies if you meant strictly tabletop games.
its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
I'm finding a hard time thinking of any game where this doesn't apply. Could you give an example of a game where this is not true?
A game where instead of playing against the mechanics you play against the opponent.
Or where multiple choices have equal or uncertain value through risk and reward scenarios. Because the opponent cannot react, because your entire strategy acts as a singular uninterrupted whole, because you gamble nothing, the values of your choices are static and knowable.
Opponent interruptions make it into gambles and uncertainties. Hidden information, like your opponents hand on poker, mean you cannot calculate the values. Only guess.
By having cost to choices (how much mana does a cost versus b), uncertain values, and opponent interruptions, you add depth to your choices. Which then builds tactical game play. Since you are uninterrupted, nothing is hidden from you, and your choices have no cost to execute 40k lacks depth. And when you start seeing As you start losing meaningful choice from the illusion of choice.
To me, it feels like there's more choice in the combat phase due to the existence of the basic Command Abilities everyone gets, All out Attack, and All out Defense. Since you can only use each command ability once per phase, and each unit can only receive one command ability per phase, you have to weight your options. Piled atop the alternate activation of combats within the combat phase.
Coincidentally, the armies I dislike the most are the ones that take away that fun game of take and pull with applying buffs and fighting against your foes. The Always-Strikes-First abilities, the armies that just don't get in to combat all, etc.
Now, it's by no means perfect. I just mean to use it as an example of what I think largely makes for a more interesting experience with some better choices to be played around with, than what 40k offers.
Huh, in that case then that actually flips my understanding. Only Kings of War, 40k, AoS, One Page Rules, checkers and chess (among games that I'm familiar with) aren't so-called tactical games. (It's been a really long time since I've played Go, but I think it would also fall under this category? But long enough that I can't confidently say it does).
Infinity, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica Imperialis, Conquest (as a subset of examples) all have elements of hidden information. Interesting.
Chess and way more so Go are percieved as tactical due to the sheer volume of choices available. But computers wreck master chess players percisley because the values can be calculated and executed on. Go has WAY more potential moves than chess. And it either is taking longer or has taken longer to create a computer that can calculate Go. But thats just a matter of programing and computing power. Its not a if, its a when.
Off topic-ish, but there's an interesting youtube documentary series called Down the Rabbit Hole. One of the video's was about Deep Blue, and the development of that Chess Machine, that was the first to beat grand masters.
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
Thats 40k.
That sure seems like there are still important decision points to be made on the table-top, very unlike chutes and ladders.
And I'm still interacting with the opponent's decision making, and potentially seeing their plan and making it go sideways, even if that isn't "big-gun-shoots-at-big-threat" logic.
Lance845 wrote: Chess and way more so Go are percieved as tactical due to the sheer volume of choices available. But computers wreck master chess players percisley because the values can be calculated and executed on. Go has WAY more potential moves than chess. And it either is taking longer or has taken longer to create a computer that can calculate Go. But thats just a matter of programing and computing power. Its not a if, its a when.
Your not dealing with the opponent. You are dealing with the aftermath of their decision making. Its a fairly significant difference.
And yes, there are a lot of decision points, (# of units * number of phases they act in at minimum). But those decisions are rarely if ever meaningful (see above).
The "big gunz big target" logic is a simplified example. You might, though I think rarely, find a decision point that has more complexity. But like chess and go the complexity doesn't stop it from being an equation and your own skill level is the only thing preventing you from finding A, the optimal choice.
Your opponent is incapable of having a plan until he sees what he has left in the aftermath of your choices. At least not one that has any value.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, thats not entirely true. Your opponent has a strategy. Undermining their strategy is part of finding A. Ala chess.
Thadin wrote: Off topic-ish, but there's an interesting youtube documentary series called Down the Rabbit Hole. One of the video's was about Deep Blue, and the development of that Chess Machine, that was the first to beat grand masters.
Continuing down the Rabbit Hole with the off topic nature- I used to do a fair bit of spoken word/ performance poetry, and connected with other professional poets. One of my favourite poems of all time is a piece by David Perez about the chess match where Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov. It isn't necessarily the most literary of poems, but in performance, it sounds great- the escalation of the chess moves in parallel with the anthropomorphized computer taunting Gary is just amazing when you hear it. Here's a link if you dig on poetry, chess or AI:
I've tried to post infrequently in this thread, but I've followed it. I've softened my position on the synonymous nature of tactics and strategy, and I find Lance's distinction between pregame choices and game play choice to eliminate the need for such semantics anyway. I try hard to see people's points even when I disagree, and I think a few things are becoming clearer as a result.
The folks talking about meaningful choices vs. flowchart play, I think, are primarily those who are more satisfied by AA- style games; this might be what they mean by interacting with players, rather than interacting with a strategy. And as I've said before, I get the appeal of AA- the back and forth nature of the action, and that you can't rely too heavily on a 'plan' because you only get to execute the plan one unit at a time, so the opportunities for the opponent to interrupt are far greater, which means you have to be able to adapt on the fly no matter how good your plan is, because as in real warfare - "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."
There is appeal in this style of play, and to some, it feels like more of a wargame or simulation.
The bad news for players who prefer this style of play though, is that no matter what GW does to 40k, if it stays IGOUGO, I'm not sure they can ever be satisfied. The "flowchart" feel is a product of IGOUGO (I think) and not necessarily the specific rules of 9th ed 40k. I came to this conclusion when I tried to think of how any game could not be flowcharted. AA games were the only thing I could come up with, specifically because of the evolving game state that arises as a by-product of the interrupt phenomenon.
But what I wish, is that these players could also see the game from our point of view- I totally understand the appeal and validity of their preferences, but I find that in their attempts to suggest improvements to the game, they often get a tone where it feels like they are attacking players with different preferences or the game itself. And to be fair, I recognize in my own posts times where I've probably come across the same way, despite my attempts to avoid doing so.
So to those against, I ask:
Is it possible that games designed for strategists have as much intrinsic value as those designed for tacticians? Maybe if you, like me, prefer IGOUGO40k you are a strategist and not a tactician. And maybe that's okay. It's unfortunate if you love 40k models and 40k lore but you're more of a tactician than a strategist... Because you're going to keep proposing things that you perceive as genuine improvements to the game... And we're going to keep reacting against them because we think strategies are cooler and more fun than tactics.
Heck, given the current popularity of the game, perhaps strategists are flocking to the game and loving it, while tacticians are concerned. It's also possible that some of the things people liked about previous versions (facings, pinning. morale) appealed to them specifically because it tickled the tactician in them, but they hold little value for us because we're strategists and we're happy enough with what we've got. Some of us probably even prefer it- I know I do.
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
Thats 40k.
And that's every single solitary game in existence, from 40K to MMOs, to board games, card games, you name it, including chess! So your complaint is that 40K has the same problem as every other game (except Chutes and Ladders)? Literally, chess masters call it 'playing the same line' - you've been in that situation before, so you know if you do A then B will happen. In Blackjack, if the dealer shows X and you have Y, you do Z. There's even a handy reference card about the size of a credit card that some casinos will let you bring in.
Whenever people pull out the mathhammer, there is always a best option. However, while playing the game, the decisions you make affect which mathhammer you apply. That's why all the little decisions matter, because then you're predicting and forcing the game to a particular direction which should be to your advantage.
I think the term you guys are looking for is 'muscle memory' - you've done something often enough that you will take the action (right or wrong) instinctively without having to think much about it. But remember, it's not practice makes perfect, it's perfect practice makes perfect. Doing the wrong thing over and over just means you'll instinctively do the wrong thing.
Pretty much impossible to argue with someone who has defined tactics so thinly that chess doesn't have any. In a fighting game with zero randomness there is always a theoretical correct choice to make, a rock-paper-scissors situation where if you pick one option you take your turn and if you pick the other you get hit.
What makes fighting games interesting is that nobody can read minds and know if their opponent is gonna pick rock or paper; they do know that if they pick rock and lose they get knocked down but if they pick scissors and lose they lose the round.
Risk assessment is at the heart of pretty much any valid competitive game. A lot of the risk in 40k comes from dice rolls and the potential to whiff or overkill, but 8th and 9th introduction of stratagems absolutely adds another layer of decision making. The -1 to wound and similar stratagems create a game of chicken where both players are on the hook to decide how much to commit and when, at the same time even! If the attacking player overcommits their biggest guns first then the bulk of their shooting will get wasted in a well-protected squad, if the defender commits to the stratagem too early then the attacker will simply switch to a softer target now that they know the rest of the army can't be protected. There's no pre-game strategy that can "solve" that decision.
Lance845 wrote: Your not dealing with the opponent. You are dealing with the aftermath of their decision making. Its a fairly significant difference.
And yes, there are a lot of decision points, (# of units * number of phases they act in at minimum). But those decisions are rarely if ever meaningful (see above).
The "big gunz big target" logic is a simplified example. You might, though I think rarely, find a decision point that has more complexity. But like chess and go the complexity doesn't stop it from being an equation and your own skill level is the only thing preventing you from finding A, the optimal choice.
Your opponent is incapable of having a plan until he sees what he has left in the aftermath of your choices. At least not one that has any value.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, thats not entirely true. Your opponent has a strategy. Undermining their strategy is part of finding A. Ala chess.
Exactly!!
1 - every game you're dealing with the aftermath of the opponent, whether 40K or card games or MMOs (where your opponent is the game developer)
2 - This, so much this: "your own skill level is the only thing preventing you from finding A, the optimal choice" - Your own skill level, meaning there are important decisions that you have to make, what we've been saying all along.
and finally
3 - "Your opponent has a strategy. Undermining their strategy is part of finding A. ". Yep - how do you stop their secondaries, how do you stop them from scoring on the primary. How do you trade up units? Those are the strategies, but how you go about them is 100% tactics.
Neat! My BA is in game design. I am not talking about infinite choice. Illusion of choice has nothing to do with the number of choice. It has to do with the value of each choice in comparison to the others. If choice a gets you 100 points. Choice b and c get you 50 points and choice d e and f get you 0 points the question isn't just why would anyone ever take d e and f? Its why would anyone ever do anything but a? And so b-f are the illusion of choice.
Once you understand your flow chart you will find a lot of choice as. And yeah, your unit COULD move in an infinite number of directions. But why would you ever move them anywhere but a? And yeah, you could shoot your gun at any unit. Or not shoot at all! But why wouldn't you focus fire on the biggest threat with the guns that do the most damage? Why not A?
And people will talk about terrain and positioning and etc... But its all a static game state. Once your turn begins the opponent can do precious little to interrupt you. So you are a better or worse player only in your own ability to utilize your flow chart to recognize A. The only cost to you is your own inability to find it. You loose nothing by doing A. You gain everything. The opponent cannot stop you.
Thats 40k.
And that's every single solitary game in existence, from 40K to MMOs, to board games, card games, you name it, including chess! So your complaint is that 40K has the same problem as every other game (except Chutes and Ladders)? Literally, chess masters call it 'playing the same line' - you've been in that situation before, so you know if you do A then B will happen. In Blackjack, if the dealer shows X and you have Y, you do Z. There's even a handy reference card about the size of a credit card that some casinos will let you bring in.
Whenever people pull out the mathhammer, there is always a best option. However, while playing the game, the decisions you make affect which mathhammer you apply. That's why all the little decisions matter, because then you're predicting and forcing the game to a particular direction which should be to your advantage.
I think the term you guys are looking for is 'muscle memory' - you've done something often enough that you will take the action (right or wrong) instinctively without having to think much about it. But remember, it's not practice makes perfect, it's perfect practice makes perfect. Doing the wrong thing over and over just means you'll instinctively do the wrong thing.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed his point. The decision to take the most optimal action in 40k is almost always immediately obvious. As I said before, no one chooses to fire a lascannon at guardsman because its the best choice.
Lets pretend for a second that 40k plays like Warmachine. Now before you say anything this isn't about whether you like the mechanics of Warmachine its just an example of how the the decision making of both games play out at the start of a turn.
So in Warmachine 40k at the start of my turn I have to allocate resources to my tanks to make them do stuff better. These resources are also needed to activate my warlords aura abilities, buff his attacks and also buff his save if he gets attacked in my opponents next turn. Already I have a bunch of decisions to make about both how I want to play my turn. I can see my opponent has a few heavily armoured models in the scoring zone that I need to get rid of to score but also that he's left his warlord in a somewhat delicate position with only infantry protecting him and if I kill him I win the game.
I could allocate some of my resources to the tanks to make them somewhat more likely to clear the scoring zone, I could allocate a lot to almost definitely clear the zone but leave myself unable to use auras or defend myself well, or I could not give them any resources and try to clear the infantry with my infantry, use the tanks as back up in case of some bad rolls so that I can try to kill his warlord with mine.by burning all.my resources to buff up and win the game. Thats not even getting into things like abilities that move enemy models or disrupt their following turn somehow.
None of those choices are immediately obviously the best choice. Where as with 40k the decision would be shoot their best tank with strong guns, shoot infantry with anything too weak to kill tanks, turn over.
Sim-Life wrote: Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
This part of the thread has made me appreciate the Heat rules in BattleTech all the more. That stuff influences damn near every decision you make during the game.
Is it possible that games designed for strategists have as much intrinsic value as those designed for tacticians?
So... this depends on what you mean by value.
Do you mean it can be as good of a GAME?
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
To compare it to another medium, Tremors 3 isn't a good movie. The acting isn't great, the writing isn't fantastic, it's not shot in any great way. It's just not a great piece of cinema.
But if by value you mean your enjoyment?
Absolutely. I LOVE Tremors 3. It not being a good movie doesn't take away it's ability for me to derive enjoyment from it. And 40k being a bad game doesn't and shouldn't take any ounce of enjoyment you derive from it away from you.
It is fact that The Winter Soldier is a better piece of cinema than Iron Man 3. It's shot better, the acting and writing is better, the special effects are better, the story is better. It's just in all ways a better MCU movie. But that doesn't prevent someone from liking IM3 and hating TWS.
Your enjoyment is yours. When I have these discussions this isn't about what you or I LIKE. If we get to my personal preference I will say that. I PREFER AA but it's not the only way to give 40k better game play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: Pretty much impossible to argue with someone who has defined tactics so thinly that chess doesn't have any.
You mean the actual text book definition of tactics? Or do you mean the actual text book definition of game play? These aren't MY, I made this up in my free time, definitions. These are the actual definitions of the words. Sorry if the complexity of the possibilities in chess, when viewed through a technical lens, ended up showing that chess is something other than what you thought it was. Pluto is a planetoid. Not a planet. Just is what it is.
I will say that Chess, and more so Go, are SO complex that for the vast majority of people they are VIRTUALLY tactical. It's more than most people can or do calculate. It's why it took a "super computer" to start beating people. But thats a difference in scale not a difference in kind. Most peoples experience with Chess is tactical. Because both they and their opponent cannot do the math to break it down.
Back to 40k, it's both incredibly complicated in the volume of rules and their inane interactions and incredibly simplistic in it's execution of decisions. There is stupefying amounts of complexity in what you need to know. But the equation of what you should do? Algebra 1 at best. Arithmetic most of the time.
In a fighting game with zero randomness there is always a theoretical correct choice to make, a rock-paper-scissors situation where if you pick one option you take your turn and if you pick the other you get hit.
The difference is when you and your opponent in a fighting game are throwing rock paper scissors at each other your doing it at the same time and you don't know what they are going to do. And it's not simply RPS. It's more like Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock. Because there are a lot more than 3 options with varying degrees of cost and impact. How slow is the action? What hit boxes does it impact? What can the opponent do?
In 40k, on your turn you throw rock. On my turn I can see that you already threw rock. I now get to pick paper. On your turn you can see that I threw paper. You get to choose scissors.
What makes fighting games interesting is that nobody can read minds and know if their opponent is gonna pick rock or paper; they do know that if they pick rock and lose they get knocked down but if they pick scissors and lose they lose the round.
Risk assessment is at the heart of pretty much any valid competitive game. A lot of the risk in 40k comes from dice rolls and the potential to whiff or overkill, but 8th and 9th introduction of stratagems absolutely adds another layer of decision making. The -1 to wound and similar stratagems create a game of chicken where both players are on the hook to decide how much to commit and when, at the same time even! If the attacking player overcommits their biggest guns first then the bulk of their shooting will get wasted in a well-protected squad, if the defender commits to the stratagem too early then the attacker will simply switch to a softer target now that they know the rest of the army can't be protected. There's no pre-game strategy that can "solve" that decision.
Players tend to have like 12-15 points for strats and strats cost 1-3 points. That means somewhere between 4 and 15 points where the other player might break the mold.
4-15 points over the course of several hours.
If that was 15 points over 30 minutes that could be a pretty intense game. But 1 potential interesting choice every 12 minutes over a 3 hour game. I dare you to go sit in a chair and stare at a table for 12 minutes. Let me know how engaging it is.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
I have been proving it. You either have been misunderstanding the points I have been making or you have been actively avoiding them. I already proved that 40ks game play is bad. If you ever decide to actually read my posts it's all in there.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
Actually, those are opinions, not facts. The simplest difference is
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven.
I think we're all in agreement that 40K isn't well balanced. Art of War had a faction ranking just last week. So I think we agree that's a consensus of opinion, so we'll call it a fact.
Now for the opinion. My opinion is that the game has layers, from (see my earlier post). You say game play is paper thin as a fact. prove it. No blanket statements, no opinions, it must be a logically sound proof and encompass every aspect of the gameplay (we'll exclude pre-game for now), and it cannot include *any* choices or decisions (as facts require neither of these).
Did you just ask him to prove a negative?
No. He appears to lack the ability to separate conversational speech from technical terms and either can't or won't follow the points or connect the dots. He also seems to think a group of opinions become facts. "Alternative Facts" if you will.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
We still make just as many choices- we just make them all with our whole army at the same time. It appeals to us because we are more interested in Strategy than Tactics.
If strategy and tactics are different things, then it stands to reason that some games will be heavier on strategy and others are heavier on tactics. Being heavy on strategy doesn't make a game objectively worse, it just appeals to different types of people. You might prefer games that are all about tactics- if so, you won't like games that deal with strategy as much. And that's okay.
But people like me, who see acting with your whole army in one fluid extended action to coordinate between units without the constant back and forth interruption of AA as a feature, well again, we just want different things. If I'm not allowed to tell you what you like without Sim coming to your rescue, why do you get to say that a game which leans more heavily into strategy than tactics is objectively worse?
I've already met you half way and said I see the appeal of tactical games- I'm not insulting your preferences; I'm not claiming they're objectively worse. It doesn't appeal as much to me- I hate having to go back and forth and not be able to achieve my battlefield plan- my strategy. And if I admit that your preference is valid, but just not for me, why can't you do the same?
I don't know; maybe that's what happens in game theory classes- they create an objective standard by which to judge games and push that agenda. In the study of Literature, we did the same thing for years- we created a Canon- and said for hundreds of years, writer A is better than writer B. But I gotta tell you, that approach started to show its obsolescence beginning in the early 90's and continuing into the present, because we started to realize how much the Canon was a product of the personal preferences of those who created it. These days, we tend to study the characteristics of art without judging its supposed objective worth. You know, that Eye of the Beholder cliche.
No. Game play being a series of interesting choices, all else being equal (balance and aesthetics and component quality etc etc..) the more interesting the choices and the better designed where and how they occur the better the game. 40k isn't particularly well balanced, but even outside of that it's game play is so paper thin. It's just not a good game. Not opinion. Fact.
We still make just as many choices- we just make them all with our whole army at the same time. It appeals to us because we are more interested in Strategy than Tactics.
If strategy and tactics are different things, then it stands to reason that some games will be heavier on strategy and others are heavier on tactics. Being heavy on strategy doesn't make a game objectively worse, it just appeals to different types of people. You might prefer games that are all about tactics- if so, you won't like games that deal with strategy as much. And that's okay.
But people like me, who see acting with your whole army in one fluid extended action to coordinate between units without the constant back and forth interruption of AA as a feature, well again, we just want different things. If I'm not allowed to tell you what you like without Sim coming to your rescue, why do you get to say that a game which leans more heavily into strategy than tactics is objectively worse?
Because I am not telling you what I like. I am talking to you about what IS. I GET that you like it. I appreciate that you like it. I WANT you to like what you like, and like it to the extent that you like it. But you LIKING it isn't going to give it greater value from a technical stand point.
I've already met you half way and said I see the appeal of tactical games- I'm not insulting your preferences; I'm not claiming they're objectively worse. It doesn't appeal as much to me- I hate having to go back and forth and not be able to achieve my battlefield plan- my strategy. And if I admit that your preference is valid, but just not for me, why can't you do the same?
I can. I am doing it. Your preference is valid. Your valid preference is a different thing from technical assessment.
I don't know; maybe that's what happens in game theory classes- they create an objective standard by which to judge games and push that agenda. In the study of Literature, we did the same thing for years- we created a Canon- and said for hundreds of years, writer A is better than writer B. But I gotta tell you, that approach started to show its obsolescence beginning in the early 90's and continuing into the present, because we started to realize how much the Canon was a product of the personal preferences of those who created it. These days, we tend to study the characteristics of art without judging its supposed objective worth. You know, that Eye of the Beholder cliche.
I started my education in the arts actually. I began going for illustration before moving into game art and design where I studied 3d modeling and animation before getting into the technical game design. I understand all that. But when I look at a painting I can assess technique. The application of line, color, and space. Use of negative space to what effect. Use of complimentary colors to what effect. A childs finger painting is still art even if their technique is bad. A parent can still love it, their favorite picture, even if the artist exhibits little talent or training. These are separate lenses through which to view the work.
I am not insulting you by assessing 40k on the merits of it's construction. And I am in no way attempting to take away from you your enjoyment.
But that's just it- the comparison between tactical games and strategy games isn't a comparison between a child's finger painting and a master's portrait; it's a comparison between a cubist and a pointalist, or a romantic poet and imagist.
Strategy and tactics, by your definition are two different things. Therefore, there are strategy games and tactical games. Judging either one by the standards of the other misses the mark.
Because I am not telling you what I like. I am talking to you about what IS.
Yeaaahh, not so sure about that. I make decisions, my opponent makes decisions. They are meaningful to the outcome of the battle. Good players make better decisions than bad players. Decisions change from battle to battle, context to context, and even with and reacting to different play styles.
But people like me, who see acting with your whole army in one fluid extended action to coordinate between units without the constant back and forth interruption of AA as a feature, well again, we just want different things. If I'm not allowed to tell you what you like without Sim coming to your rescue, why do you get to say that a game which leans more heavily into strategy than tactics is objectively worse?
Bolded the relevant part. This isn't something that happens in 40k either beyond a very basic level. Also I'm not coming to his rescue, he doesn't need it. We just both disagree with you.
.
There are some beauty and enjoyment to a well made strategy. If the gameplay is either simple enough or your strategy is overwhelmingly good then a game can literally play itself without any real input after you have started the game.
If you have ever played Total War games you can really see the difference between strategy and tactics. If you have dominated the campaign map and built the best army possible against a certain enemy then you can often just get into the battle, deploy your army and let the very basic AI take over for you and without much problem crush the enemy army. You yourself might have done it perfectly but if you have already won on the strategy step big enough the AI might do it 90-95% as good as you have.
If on the other hand you haven't had the opportunity to optimize your army in the campaign step and instead have an army that might even be weaker on paper than the opponent you can still win the game on tactics. If you do it as in the previous example and just deploy and let AI take over you will at best get a pyrrhic victory since the AI can't do tactic very well. But if instead you control the army perfectly and use your tools perfectly to maneuver around the enemy, use the terrain to your advantage and break them through morale at the right timing you can through tactics alone crush them even if you showed up with a weaker army.
This I think works very well as a comparison to 40k. If too much stuff is in the strategy department then what happens on the table isn't really going to matter much if both players are at least somewhat competent. The game is so short and forces scoring from an early stage so you can't spend time doing any fancy maneuvers. It's get in there and score and hope your army is stronger in the matchup and the strategy behind your list is better than the opponent's.
And just as in Total War it can feel really good to see your army on AI just stomp your opponent due to how well you built your army. But after a while it isn't very interesting anymore since what you are doing is more like watching a movie than playing a game. Which is fine if you are there for the cinematic experience and not the engaging gameplay.
From what I gather in total war a lot of people just restart the game when the battles become to easy and all that is left is taking over the world. There is little to no tactical gameplay left at this point so for many the game is over. I have done lots of campaigns to the end but it is almost always those earlier turns with armies closer to each other in size and power that hinges on outplaying the AI on the battlefield that make the game so fun and engaging.
I also love playing Paradox's grand strategy games that have barely any tactical component at all and take hundreds of hours to play a single game. I have been playing those since Svea Rike 2 in the nineties, almost a decade before I started wargaming.
The thing with 40k is that it is a cinematic game sold as being a tactical game by using bloated rules to hide that it is mostly a game about building a list with a simpel strategy in mind and let an AI(you the player) slowly execute the moves over a 3h game.
If you just want it to be a cinematic strategy game at the table top you could just balance the game a bit more and reduce 90% of the rules. It won't become less cinematic or cool for that but rather more engaging to watch play out. Because now you know the game won't play out exactly the same every time. It is nice watching your favourite movie and see the heroes win but you would probably want to see something else than Star Wars every weekend since you know the results. But if the Empire(mperial Guard)could actually win against the rebels (Drukhari or Ad mech) then wouldn't it be more fun to watch star wars every weekend?
This is assuming every unit has a single perfect target. What about deciding what tank to bring down first with the anti tank when there's not enough anti tank to kill everything? What about risking to split fire to have the chance of killing two tanks instead of a guaranteed single kill? What about deciding to use a unit for killing/tarpitting an opponent one or using it for trying to score? Aren't this decisions?
It is fact that The Winter Soldier is a better piece of cinema than Iron Man 3. It's shot better, the acting and writing is better, the special effects are better, the story is better. It's just in all ways a better MCU movie. But that doesn't prevent someone from liking IM3 and hating TWS.
"Better" is entirely subjetive, unless there actuall numbers to back it up, for example getting more money for the exact same job in the exact same setting is definitely better. The Winter Soldier (IMHO the only MCU movie that actually worths something by the way ) is not objectively better than Iron Man 3, it just had more general consensus.
It's not that 40k doesn't have in-game choice and player agency, it's that the choices are fairly shallow. Especially in comparison to other ttg's like, say, warmachine or infinity.
This isn't a good thing or a bad thing. I love the models of infinity but find the complexity a bit of a turn off. There was a time when I loved the millions of synnergies and interactions and combos of warmachine - it truly felt like you were trying to solve a rubix cube while it slowly dissolved your hand. These days I prefer simpler games like warcry. As well as games with a strong random element like bolt action or test of honor. I find they challenge different things which appeal to me more now. Not better or worse, just where I am in life.
40k has complexity, but not depth. And there is nothing wrong with a game like that.
This is assuming every unit has a single perfect target. What about deciding what tank to bring down first with the anti tank when there's not enough anti tank to kill everything? What about risking to split fire to have the chance of killing two tanks instead of a guaranteed single kill? What about deciding to use a unit for killing/tarpitting an opponent one or using it for trying to score? Aren't this decisions?
Then statistically there is a optimal choice that will get you your most bang for your buck from that unit (because the dice are a RNG element. Without the dice it wouldn't be statistically. It would JUST be the best choice). The difficulty in calculating it doesn't mean it's not a calculation and your ability to calculate it is what says how skilled you are at 40k.
It is fact that The Winter Soldier is a better piece of cinema than Iron Man 3. It's shot better, the acting and writing is better, the special effects are better, the story is better. It's just in all ways a better MCU movie. But that doesn't prevent someone from liking IM3 and hating TWS.
"Better" is entirely subjetive, unless there actuall numbers to back it up, for example getting more money for the exact same job in the exact same setting is definitely better. The Winter Soldier (IMHO the only MCU movie that actually worths something by the way ) is not objectively better than Iron Man 3, it just had more general consensus.
No, market success is also different from product quality. I am talking about the quality of the films construction. Not my opinion on whether or not I enjoyed the experience or how many agree with me.
This is assuming every unit has a single perfect target. What about deciding what tank to bring down first with the anti tank when there's not enough anti tank to kill everything? What about risking to split fire to have the chance of killing two tanks instead of a guaranteed single kill? What about deciding to use a unit for killing/tarpitting an opponent one or using it for trying to score? Aren't this decisions?
They're decisions but not interesting ones. We've been over this. You know what would make it an interesting decision? If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour.
Even the very simple addition of disrupting models on the following turn or moving enemy models out of position would make 40k a far more interesting game because it opens up a lot of flexibility in how you approach a given situation.
Looking at Warmachine again, if you opponent has a warjack in the scoring zone you have multiple ways of dealing with it usually. You can just try to brute force it by loading up your own warjacks with focus and killing it, but that is resource intensive and you have spells/other warjacks/defence to fuel with those resources, you can push it out but do no damage and risk retaliation next turn but you'll be up on points, you can knock it down, it doesn't do.much damage and you need to use resources to make sure you pull it off but everything else auto-hits it for the rest of the turn and if its still alive it needs to spend its own resources to get it working again and it will probably be damaged enough that your its retaliation won't be so severe and you can kill it in your next turn and score then. All of these are very basic options without getting into things like model abilities or synergies and they are all equally valid. Compared to 40k where your option is shoot it or don't. You probably should though. Also save a CP for the reroll strat if you miss.
They're decisions but not interesting ones. We've been over this. You know what would make it an interesting decision? If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour.
I can agree with that, although it's much different from "decisions don't matter at all". And again, the concept of interesting is also entirely subjective .
I can agree with that, although it's much different from "decisions don't matter at all". And again, the concept of interesting is also entirely subjective .
The concept of "interesting choice" in game design is not subjective and conversational. It specifically relates to choices that have consequences regardless of what you pick. When you have the illusion of choice, the optimal choice doesn't have consequences for you. Only benefits. It's not an interesting choice. You might choose wrong and thus suffer consequences. But that doesn't make the choice interesting. It only means you failed to identify A.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tetris is a pure engine of interesting choices. What orientation is the block? Where do you put it? Do you destroy one line or build up for multiple? Even when you score the speed increases the difficulty.
No matter what you do in tetris there is no purely optimal choice and no matter what you choose you pay for it in some way.
Sim-Life wrote: ...If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour....
So something like "You can shoot your lascannon at the tank/big gribbly because that's what it's there for, or you can shoot it at a chaff unit and if you get a kill it immediately forces a morale check at -2 because 'SACRED FETH! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JENKINS!'"?
Sim-Life wrote: ...If you had other option that were equally valid and the best answer wasn't always immediately obvious, or there were alternate paths to win, or ways to manipulate the game state to your favour....
So something like "You can shoot your lascannon at the tank/big gribbly because that's what it's there for, or you can shoot it at a chaff unit and if you get a kill it immediately forces a morale check at -2 because 'SACRED FETH! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JENKINS!'"?
If you want. Though talking about weapons causing morale effects will inevitably lead to a discussion about how 40k used to have Pinning and Go To Ground rules.
Is that such a terrible discussion to be had? It would produce another dimension that uses a sorely underused mechanic and bring some tactical depth to the game.
No. He appears to lack the ability to separate conversational speech from technical terms and either can't or won't follow the points or connect the dots. He also seems to think a group of opinions become facts. "Alternative Facts" if you will.
ad hominem fallacy And just because your opinion is the game sucks doesn't make it a fact (fallacy hasty generalization)
You've proven nothing, just made claims with no backing. Saying "Because I am not telling you what I like. I am talking to you about what IS" is opinion, not fact and not a proof. I'm asking for a real, logical proof, of the form "a => b" ( "if it rains" then "the sidewalk is wet", but "the sidewalk is wet" is not proof of "it rained" ). This kind of proof is the foundation of our mathematics and every logical argument,that every software developer (well, back in my day) had to do.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
All of these are proven false by fact that millions of games are not 100% identical, and the fact (not opinion!) that @Lance845 isn't undefeated on the tournament scene for multiple tournaments.
Now, some will claim "mathematically optimal" BS - which is easily disproved because movement is subjective, and there is no mathematically optimal unit placement. So we can't have mathematically optimal shooting because you can't have mathematically optimal movement (if a => b, then ~b => ~a). And we won't even talk about my game with 30 dice hitting on 3's of which 29 missed... and the remaining die failed to wound...
@Lance845 -Now this is the real meat here:
The concept of "interesting choice" in game design is not subjective and conversational. It specifically relates to choices that have consequences regardless of what you pick. When you have the illusion of choice, the optimal choice doesn't have consequences for you. Only benefits. It's not an interesting choice. You might choose wrong and thus suffer consequences. But that doesn't make the choice interesting. It only means you failed to identify A.
Every choice you make in 40K has a consequence. I choose to play IG, which makes my games tougher. If you choose to play pre-nerf orks or AdMech, then the consequences are A- your game gets boring, and B- people will choose not to play you. So from start to finish, there are consequences, but the key thing to remember is that each step of the start to finish is a series of choices and those choices matter. Each one may not be game making/breaking, but they add up to whether or not you win or lose, and whether or not you *AND* your opponent enjoy the time at the table.
And the concept of "interesting choice" is subjective because not everybody plays everything the exact same way, or has the skill to play at the LVGT top table. So even "mathematically optimal" doesn't apply when a- we lack the skill to make perfect movements and b- each and every turn we have to adjust your strategy and tactics because of "what we have left" for that turn. And "failed to identify A" is the norm, and that's a fact. Nobody is that perfect.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
No. He appears to lack the ability to separate conversational speech from technical terms and either can't or won't follow the points or connect the dots. He also seems to think a group of opinions become facts. "Alternative Facts" if you will.
ad hominem fallacy And just because your opinion is the game sucks doesn't make it a fact (fallacy hasty generalization)
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
But that is true of every single solitary game in existence. Take your example, that's *ONE* decision over the course of the game. How did you get there? Was there a better target earlier in the game? Was there somewhere you could have moved in turn 1 where that last decision didn't matter?
You're looking at the culmination of a lot of decisions that added up to a singular moment in the game where the final decision became a no brainer to win you the game. To me, that's a great game. The game wasn't decided on turn 1, but the end of turn 5. It became clear after examining your options, not blinding obvious from the get go on turn 1. How would the game have been different with ROD or a different secondary? Could you have picked off that character earlier in the game but chose not to?
It's like drive across the country (or multiple countries in europe), then saying "the trip sucked because at the end we checked into our hotel that we planned to". Really? Where did you stop along the way? Where did you take detours, what new restaurants, tourist spot scenic drives, etc. did you partake in along the way?
Some have complained about nothing to do during your opponent's turn. Really? examine the board, talk with others. Look up strats for your opponents army. Eat a beer & drink pretzels
The game isn't about the moment after the game ends, it's about the journey to get there, which is what I've been saying all along.
I can't imagine you aren't deliberately missing the point now. You do understand that we're discussing two different TYPES of decisions? Not the NUMBER of decisions?
Also for someone who likes to point out fallacies that was a hell of a false comparison.
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
But that is true of every single solitary game in existence. Take your example, that's *ONE* decision over the course of the game. How did you get there? Was there a better target earlier in the game? Was there somewhere you could have moved in turn 1 where that last decision didn't matter?
You're looking at the culmination of a lot of decisions that added up to a singular moment in the game where the final decision became a no brainer to win you the game. To me, that's a great game. The game wasn't decided on turn 1, but the end of turn 5. It became clear after examining your options, not blinding obvious from the get go on turn 1. How would the game have been different with ROD or a different secondary? Could you have picked off that character earlier in the game but chose not to?
It's like drive across the country (or multiple countries in europe), then saying "the trip sucked because at the end we checked into our hotel that we planned to". Really? Where did you stop along the way? Where did you take detours, what new restaurants, tourist spot scenic drives, etc. did you partake in along the way?
Some have complained about nothing to do during your opponent's turn. Really? examine the board, talk with others. Look up strats for your opponents army. Eat a beer & drink pretzels
The game isn't about the moment after the game ends, it's about the journey to get there, which is what I've been saying all along.
You're missing the point. Unsurprisingly. Your set of assertions (that you've handily snipped out here, I notice) are simply incorrect, leading to potentially incorrect conclusions.
The point of my example is to illustrate that just because a choice exists it doesn't make it meaningful. How we got to that point is irrelevant for the example given since all I'm doing is giving an example that disproves your previous assertions. It's entirely possible every action up to that point was also not a meaningful decision. Or maybe some of them really were meaningful. That's totally irrelevant for the purposes of the example.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
So by last turn of the game, you mean the last turn with no opponent turn to follow, right? I ask because this is the point in most games where the proper move is always the most obvious. If it was your last turn but your opponent had a turn afterwards, taking three 3 VP instead of trying to destroy that character may have additional consequences that make the decision more “interesting”.
Simply put, 40K might not be the most complex game ever, but sometimes the “obvious” choice isn’t the best choice. That is one difference between skill levels of players, knowing when the obvious choice is not the best choice.
The claim is "40K sucks" because "there are no meaningful decisions" (ignoring that these are are opinions, not facts). So "there are no meaningful decisions" => "40K sucks"
For "there are no meaningful decisions" to be true, that must mean
A- choosing to move a unit, or not move a unit has zero impact on the game
B- choosing to shoot a unit, or not shoot a unit has zero impact on the game
C- choosing to shoot at a unit, or not shoot at a unit has zero impact on the game
D- choosing to charge a unit, or not charge a unit has zero impact on the game
These are all incorrect assertions. Decisions can impact the game without being meaningful decisions. As an example, imagine a scenario where a unit of Eradicators has only a single target in range and line of sight. Let's assume it's a Leman Russ sitting in no-man's land with no unit able to charge it. Deciding to shoot is a decision that impacts the game. It's not a meaningful decision because the player shooting has no real choice. Nothing is gained by not shooting. Either you shoot and kill something or don't shoot and achieve nothing.
That's what Lance is getting at. Far too often the "decisions" in 40k are either blindingly obvious or become clear after very little analysis. Quick example from a game I played today. Last turn of the game, I had a character who had 2 choices open to him. He could either try to take the last wound from an enemy character in the shooting phase (pretty decent chance to do so - about 44%, better with a re-roll available) and gain 3 VPs for Assassination. Or he could perform the Vital Intelligence action and get a guaranteed 3 VPs. That's not a meaningful decision. It's always correct to take the guaranteed 3 points rather than the chance of the same number, even if the chance is 99.99%.
So by last turn of the game, you mean the last turn with no opponent turn to follow, right? I ask because this is the point in most games where the proper move is always the most obvious. If it was your last turn but your opponent had a turn afterwards, taking three 3 VP instead of trying to destroy that character may have additional consequences that make the decision more “interesting”.
Simply put, 40K might not be the most complex game ever, but sometimes the “obvious” choice isn’t the best choice. That is one difference between skill levels of players, knowing when the obvious choice is not the best choice.
Yes. But a more skilled player is simply doing the math to identify that. There is still a optimal choice. The illusion of choice is still in full swing. It's just player skill in whether or not they can identify it. And once you reach that skill level, that choice IS the obvious choice then, isn't it?
These choices are again, not against the opponent. You are not gauging what the opponents hidden information is potentially going to be (the opponent has no hidden information). You are playing against the game state. What does the board look like now. How do I eliminate threats and score VP now. When your turn is over you sit back and watch (or more likely start looking at your phone) until you find out what you have left to do it all again with.
Since everything is known, everything is calculable. Do the math, pick A, the optimal choice, hand the game back to your opponent. The only question is if you understand the game well enough to identify A.
alextroy wrote: And that is different from any other game in what way?
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react. You cannot be sure at the end of a turn you will be holding an objective to score it. If reactions exist you could be shot at for moving into a space when the opponent acts with an interrupt. In X-Wing you have to choose where you are moving at the same time that the opponent is choosing where they are moving and going for an "objective" could turn you into a pin cushion with no ability to retaliate. In apocalypse you have to issue your orders at the same time that your opponent does and you have to follow through on those orders regardless of what the opponent does. That character could move out of range or into a melee. That objective could be targeted by a detachment with bonuses because they sat still to shoot turning it into a death trap. You don't know!
Basically, it's different from most games in that your opponent is the thing you play against.
Since the opponent has the ability to interrupt your plans they introduce unknowns to the equation which means you cannot simply calculate it. You can guess at it. You can try to influence your opponents choices by setting up gambits and fake outs. But whether those pay off isn't up to you or the dice. It's up to the player on the other side of the table.
There certainly are choices in the game that are "meaningless" in the way these guys are describing; choices of this kind exist in most games, and I would say all games I have played. The place where they err is in saying ALL choices are of this type.
Again, it does come down to preferred styles of play. If you hate strats and think they need to be removed from the game, you are unlikely to appreciate them as examples of meaningful choice, or tactics. Because the thing about strats is that which strat is "mathematically correct" for a given situation isn't the whole choice. Because it is a limited resource, every use of a strat has a consequence as well as a benefit. The consequence diminishes over time- in the final turn, you could certainly argue that there is no consequence. Whether or not you can afford to use a strat is also dependent upon your opponent's remaining CP, and whether or not they have exhausted key strats for the turn.
And of course, all of these discussions focus on the matched play, stand-alone game paradigm. But when you step outside that paradigm and into a Crusade campaign, things change very quickly, because the decisions that you're making in a given game have an impact on future games, and you may be in a position where it is wise to sacrifice victory in a game to ensure a greater chance of success in future games.
This extra layer is one of the many reasons I prefer Crusade.
I have, however, come to the conclusion that it is pointless to continue to participate in the discussion. The spit take came when Lance made the post about how how someone was refusing to see HIS point and he didn't know how to explain it any better. When someone has already decided they are right, there is very little you can do to move discussion forward. It just leads to frustration.
For the rest of you who are still trying to argue, I'd recommend just depriving the discussion of oxygen. Time for another vacation from Dakka- or at the very least, this thread.
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
Apparently for a game designer, you know nothing. in AA, the player with more units has the advantage because after the player with less units is done activating, the player with more units then activates multiple units, and player 1 can't respond. It's the same problem 40k has, just on a different scale.
If you're just going to say 40k sucks so bad and some other game is sooo much better, just go play the other game and stop trolling.
PenitentJake wrote: For the rest of you who are still trying to argue, I'd recommend just depriving the discussion of oxygen. Time for another vacation from Dakka- or at the very least, this thread.
Agreed! I'm going to go play a fun game of 40K tomorrow. L8R!
alextroy wrote: And that is different from any other game in what way?
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
However, depending on the game, you would activate with a known board state, and you'd just need to solve the optimal unit of yours to activate and optimal action to take with it. One Page Rules is an alternating activation system with 0 hidden information, so even without AA it's not any more tactical than 40k is by the definitions offered in this thread.
Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus only gain (the barest of) tactics by having stratagems and gang tactics cards that you hide from your opponent. Without those, they'd be AA without tactics. Conquest only gains minimal tactics because you have to decide your activation order ahead of time and Infinity only has tactics because some units in the game can deploy in a hidden state.
Tactics are hard to come by in wargames, even with AA.
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
Apparently for a game designer, you know nothing. in AA, the player with more units has the advantage because after the player with less units is done activating, the player with more units then activates multiple units, and player 1 can't respond. It's the same problem 40k has, just on a different scale.
This isn't universally true. Games like Heroscape give players a fixed number of activations. More units is more options but not more activations. AA40k more MSU units have both less impact and get eliminated faster. A potential advantage early becomes a crippling weakness by the end of the game. Heads up. I have been playing AA40k for the last 3 years. I am very familiar with what it does and does not do. Don't theory craft at me.
If you're just going to say 40k sucks so bad and some other game is sooo much better, just go play the other game and stop trolling.
If you don't like to hear about the flaws in the thing you like why are you on Dakka Dakka where every other thread is about the flaws in 40k?
alextroy wrote: And that is different from any other game in what way?
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
However, depending on the game, you would activate with a known board state, and you'd just need to solve the optimal unit of yours to activate and optimal action to take with it. One Page Rules is an alternating activation system with 0 hidden information, so even without AA it's not any more tactical than 40k is by the definitions offered in this thread.
Agreed.
Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus only gain (the barest of) tactics by having stratagems and gang tactics cards that you hide from your opponent. Without those, they'd be AA without tactics. Conquest only gains minimal tactics because you have to decide your activation order ahead of time and Infinity only has tactics because some units in the game can deploy in a hidden state.
Tactics are hard to come by in wargames, even with AA.
X Wing, Apocalypse, Boltaction. They are not hard to come by. They just mostly don't come from Games Workshop.
I think often the tactics vs strategy gets lost in all the other issues 40k has.
It’s not easy to discuss when players can thought no fault of there own turn up to a game.
Need to be better at Army design and have access to models to support it, need to then play much better, and have better luck than the opponent.
Knights and flyers both come to mind as things stuffed into 40k by management that didn’t understand them, instead of a awesome expansion to the game both ended up rather meh.
And the rules teams have had to pick up the issues since in a game where editions move to fast, and codex support comes far to slowly.
It makes me think of World of Warcraft, mismanagement of the game over years and no one stepping up to fix issues that plague the entire design.
Apple fox wrote: I think often the tactics vs strategy gets lost in all the other issues 40k has.
It’s not easy to discuss when players can thought no fault of there own turn up to a game.
Need to be better at Army design and have access to models to support it, need to then play much better, and have better luck than the opponent.
Knights and flyers both come to mind as things stuffed into 40k by management that didn’t understand them, instead of a awesome expansion to the game both ended up rather meh.
And the rules teams have had to pick up the issues since in a game where editions move to fast, and codex support comes far to slowly.
It makes me think of World of Warcraft, mismanagement of the game over years and no one stepping up to fix issues that plague the entire design.
Oh man, WoW... Don't even get me started! haha
But yeah, 40k has a lot of issues. Balance. Lack of focus. rules being based on models instead of models being built around rules. The release schedules/methods. No doubt 40k has problems from many angles.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game) shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...) don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information: 1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown. 2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle). 3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky. 4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads 5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance. 6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
Yes. But a more skilled player is simply doing the math to identify that. There is still a optimal choice. The illusion of choice is still in full swing.
That's not always true. Sometimes there isn't an optimal choice, there's a safest one.
Example: my anti tank unit can split fire or not, if it doesn't it get X% return a against a single target, if it does it gets Y% return against two. With X being much higer than Y of course. Now avoiding to split fire can lead to an almost guaranteed kill, but splitting fire can lead to a much better result: two targets destroyed instead of one. If that happens the safest choice isn't the optimal one. That's the whole point of a dice based game, randomness has an impact and mess with averages. If randomness didn't matter or shouldn't matter why not playing with the expected results instead of rolling the dice?
In every game that are based on dice rolling there's a safest option and more rewarding but risky ones. Because if it doesn't and all players' choices are qually good then we have the illusion of choices, what the player does doesn't matter. So what's the point of having multiple ways to solve a problem when all the options are equally viable and lead to the same result?
And AA doesn't give more power to the player, it's simply a different system. Necromunda, my favorite GW game, has AA and yet what model to activate and what to do with that is much more obvious than in 40k, I always know immediately what to do and the game feels way more self driven than 40k. Which is ok, since it's mostly (if not entirely) based on the narrative built around the models.
I'm beginning to think the posters defending 40k are willfully misunderstanding the points being made. They're definitely mischaracterizing the arguments being made at any rate.
I do find brainpsyk and PenitentJake making fallacious arguments then declaring the thread pointless and that they're leaving funny though.
In a game with AA you cannot focus fire on a single unit and eliminate it before the opponent gets a chance to react.
Apparently for a game designer, you know nothing. in AA, the player with more units has the advantage because after the player with less units is done activating, the player with more units then activates multiple units, and player 1 can't respond. It's the same problem 40k has, just on a different scale.
It's like Dunning-Kruger personified. There are many, many ways to create an AA system that mitigates or solves that problem. Epic uses a system where the army lists are balanced around armies having roughly the same number of activations. Most AA games try for something similar, but not all. Bolt Action randomises the activation order, which increases the hidden information. Obviously if 40k were to go to AA there would need to be fundamental changes to the game, probably in both the rules mechanics and army list structure.
This is pretty much a solved problem in game design.
Yes. But a more skilled player is simply doing the math to identify that. There is still a optimal choice. The illusion of choice is still in full swing.
That's not always true. Sometimes there isn't an optimal choice, there's a safest one.
Explain how if the safest option is the best option, that it would then not also be the optimal one?
Example: my anti tank unit can split fire or not, if it doesn't it get X% return a against a single target, if it does it gets Y% return against two. With X being much higer than Y of course. Now avoiding to split fire can lead to an almost guaranteed kill, but splitting fire can lead to a much better result: two targets destroyed instead of one. If that happens the safest choice isn't the optimal one. That's the whole point of a dice based game, randomness has an impact and mess with averages. If randomness didn't matter or shouldn't matter why not playing with the expected results instead of rolling the dice?
In every game that are based on dice rolling there's a safest option and more rewarding but risky ones. Because if it doesn't and all players' choices are qually good then we have the illusion of choices, what the player does doesn't matter. So what's the point of having multiple ways to solve a problem when all the options are equally viable and lead to the same result?
See above. You can literally do the mathhammer on each of those rolls and determine which target is most likely to cause the most damage. You don't know how the dice are going to land, but you CAN pick the option that STATISTICALLY is going to go in your favor. And with rerolls and other 40k stuff you're unlikely to be at the total mercy of the dice. You can stack that in your favor too.
Nobody is saying all choices should be equally good. They are saying there are things that can be done to shift or hide the values. If in a game I have 2 creatures I can attack with. 1 deals 2 damage. But the other deals 3 damage but I take 1 damage every time it swings. Which is better? One has a COST. And that cost changes the equation. 40k doesn't have costs. If as Unit explained you don't know things then you cannot calculate the equation.
All choices shouldn't be equal. As many choices as possible should be Interesting.
And AA doesn't give more power to the player, it's simply a different system. Necromunda, my favorite GW game, has AA and yet what model to activate and what to do with that is much more obvious than in 40k, I always know immediately what to do and the game feels way more self driven than 40k. Which is ok, since it's mostly (if not entirely) based on the narrative built around the models.
AA gives more power to the player because you are interrupted. A strategy cannot be executed in perfect unison. The opponent has a chance to interrupt which cause you to start to have to take your opponents next actions into consideration with your own actions. THAT creates a element of unknowns. Not the best one. It wouldn't make 40k the deepest greatest tactical game in the world. But it gives it SOMETHING and something is better than the nothing it has now.
And hey, as a experiment, why not play a couple games of Necromunda IGOUGO? Whoever goes first will go with all of their models/units and then the opponent can go with all of theirs. Tell me if it made the game any better or any worse.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game)
shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...)
don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information:
1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown.
2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle).
3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky.
4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads
5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance.
6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
Yes Unit. Thank you. Perfect example of how hidden information doesn't just add depth to the game play but vastly increases tactical decision making AND playing against the player instead of the game.
No problem. I can also go into how National Characteristics would subtly nudge the decision-making there - IMHO one of the best way to differentiate armies in any game I have played (in terms of adjusting on-table effects with very little bloat).
Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Well I started down this path by saying restrictions are good IF they are used to create interesting decisions.
Like, the new balance patch didn't change the equation of if X unit was the optimal unit. It's STILL the best unit. You can now only take 3 of them.
You didn't make a more interesting choice or fix the current situation. You just put in a restriction to take choices away and try to force other answers. Not great.
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Given that the conversation stemmed from how its GW rules writing is what enables there to be a gulf between WAAC and fluff players I think a discussion about the importance of tactics vs strategy is on topic.
Strategy is where the WAAC player gets their advantage. They use OP list building and combos to win the game and it seems to be how GW would prefer to balance the game.
Tactics is where the fluff player SHOULD be able to win the game, or at least stand a chance of winning. Restrictions mean nothing here. So arguing that 40k should be more tactical is entirely fair.
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Well I started down this path by saying restrictions are good IF they are used to create interesting decisions.
Like, the new balance patch didn't change the equation of if X unit was the optimal unit. It's STILL the best unit. You can now only take 3 of them.
You didn't make a more interesting choice or fix the current situation. You just put in a restriction to take choices away and try to force other answers. Not great.
A unit's math changes also based on how many you can take. If it is optimal to field 4x of something, it may be unoptimal in case you cannot field all 4 of them. Especially when you talk about models with niche defensive profiles (like buggies), or niche offensive profiles (like flyers), the fact that you can or cannot reach critical mass does impact quite a bit on the choice being optimal or not.
By the way, while I agree with the changes on flyers, I'm not a fan on the changes on buggies. If what GW wanted to push was a hodge podge theme for buggies, then it should have allowed additional units of the same buggy if you already had at least as many buggies of the other types.
Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Given that the conversation stemmed from how its GW rules writing is what enables there to be a gulf between WAAC and fluff players I think a discussion about the importance of tactics vs strategy is on topic.
Strategy is where the WAAC player gets their advantage. They use OP list building and combos to win the game and it seems to be how GW would prefer to balance the game.
Tactics is where the fluff player SHOULD be able to win the game, or at least stand a chance of winning. Restrictions mean nothing here. So arguing that 40k should be more tactical is entirely fair.
Again, this is a sterile discussion if we can't agree on what is tactic and what is strategy.
The game is currently won by the best player with the most experience at the table. That's the only thing we know for certain. Anything else is just semantics. Unfortunately, fluff players also tend to have much less experience than competitive ones, so the gap is there to stay.
Spoletta wrote: Came into this thread expecting to find a discussion on restrictions being applied to the game... and what I find is just the second round of an old dakka discussion...
Also, a quite useless discussion which last time devolved into trying to define what is tactic and what is strategy. Spoiler: there was no agreement.
Since I see the usual subjects discussing this, I strongly reccomend to stop this. It is a completely futile discussion.where no side will budge an inch.
Well I started down this path by saying restrictions are good IF they are used to create interesting decisions.
Like, the new balance patch didn't change the equation of if X unit was the optimal unit. It's STILL the best unit. You can now only take 3 of them.
You didn't make a more interesting choice or fix the current situation. You just put in a restriction to take choices away and try to force other answers. Not great.
A unit's math changes also based on how many you can take. If it is optimal to field 4x of something, it may be unoptimal in case you cannot field all 4 of them. Especially when you talk about models with niche defensive profiles (like buggies), or niche offensive profiles (like flyers), the fact that you can or cannot reach critical mass does impact quite a bit on the choice being optimal or not.
Sure, but what I am saying is they didn't make unit Z more desirable or bring the stat block of unit A back in line with the rest of the units. They just threw out a restriction so that with 2000 points in your list you need to start looking at B, C and D to round out your list instead. It's not a interesting choice (or at least it's become a less interesting choice) because A just no longer factors into the equation beyond 3.
It's an example of how restrictions don't necessarily make for interesting choices. But restrictions that DO make for interesting choices (you have 2 actions per units activation. Move, Shoot, Psychic. Moving twice is a charge and coming in contact allows for a fight) can exist and are good for the game. The limit makes you have to choose HOW you are going to use a unit which CAN result in interesting choices (dependent on the rest of the mechanics). That is a good application of restrictions.
By the way, while I agree with the changes on flyers, I'm not a fan on the changes on buggies. If what GW wanted to push was a hodge podge theme for buggies, then it should have allowed additional units of the same buggy if you already had at least as many buggies of the other types.
Or had synergy bonuses so that you got your most bang for your buck by bringing different kinds. Yes, this is the best single buggy type. But These 3 different buggies together get more done than 3 copies of the best buggy.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game)
shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...)
don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information:
1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown.
2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle).
3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky.
4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads
5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance.
6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
Yes Unit. Thank you. Perfect example of how hidden information doesn't just add depth to the game play but vastly increases tactical decision making AND playing against the player instead of the game.
This is a big of a strawman, isn't it?
You've taken a 40K game and boiled it down to the choices in a single round and tried to compare it to CoC where the game has yet to begin. You took away all of the prior decisions in 40K that lead to that point, but offer the chance to obscure those decisions in CoC and offering up false choices, because in reality they WOULD result in one "good" choice just like 40K based on known information.
I will compare two on-table situations just from the last week to exemplify (hopefully) what Lance is talking about.
Just tonight, I was playing a game of 40k. I had two Leman Russes (in a spearhead, so OBSEC) vs like 7 Eldar models (including two Dire Avengers).
Two turns in advance, I could see it was going to come down to a fight for the objective in the center (the Relic mission in Crusade).
So, my shooting options were:
shoot the obsec (thus winning me the game)
shoot literally anything else (dark reapers can kinda hurt leman russes, and there WAS a psyker to get me agenda points. 3xp for a psyker character compared to a COMPLETELY free relic (equivalent to an entire level up) for winning...)
don't shoot and advance or blow smoke or the like instead
Big mystery, there.
Conversely, in Chain of Command, the enemy has two JOPs (jump off points; places they can deploy from) near the objective. I can be certain that one of the two is a decoy. However, I don't know which one, and I am advancing on the two of them with two squads of infantry and a tank. I can:
1) Move cautiously and cover both of them with fire, risking the game ending before I arrive at the objective (since movement distance is random, I can't calculate this all in advance)
2) Cover one with fire while maneuvering against the other. This gets my maneuvering troops forwards more quickly, but has significant risk to those selfsame troops - if the one I am maneuvering against turns out to be the REAL one, I may not be adequately covering them with fire (and instead am covering the decoy, womp womp).
3) Maneuver against both and try to bite the bullet of the enemy's deployment from one of the JOPs, but at least I know which one is which then. This is SUPER risky because you aren't allowed to know the enemy's support allocation ahead of time - he may pop out with a couple of entrenched infantry teams or he may pop up with a devastating flamethrower at short range!!
4) Pause my advance and spend some time using my squad leaders (or even platoon leader) to reorganize my squads, breaking off a two man scout team from each to send at the JOPs - if they can shut one down (or capture it) then that makes my problem infinitely easier. However, these two-man teams are very vulnerable to practically anything, and getting them wiped out could seriously blow my Force Morale (the counter that essentially determines victory; zero force morale is bad!). Each team wiped out is bad, and here I am sending teams of two people forwards AND weakening my line squads in the first place.
5) Send forward the tank, relying on its armor to protect it as it overruns one of the JOPs (leaving me only to deal with one). Advantage is that there are FAR FEWER weapons in the game that can seriously impede the tank, not to mention destroy it. Drawback is that the tank is VERY vulnerable to weapons specifically designed to kill it, so if the enemy still has one in their pocket, I would be risking not only Force Morale as in option 4 BUT ALSO one of my most powerful combat assets when the enemy does eventually deploy from the JOP onto the objective.
6) Advance slowly (and cover them with fire) until I am 'close enough" for a final rush to shut them both down at once in a single dart of speed. This is very difficult given the random movement distances, but even more difficult since my opponent knows this possibility too! He may be preserving a COC die to use to reveal an ambush of something like a flamethrower or MMG (or even an infantry team) which could shut down such a rush in a hurry. My slow advance will have given him even more time to accumulate COC dice at the beginning (the slower I am, the more COC dice a player accumulates on average, though even that rate of accumulation is random).
So, there's one objective. There's known enemy positions (roughly). But the decision making is so much deeper than 40k because of all the hidden information:
1) Some portion (the support allocation) of the enemy's army list is unknown.
2) The enemy's real location is unknown (they must be within 6" of the JOP they deploy from, but I don't know which JOP is a decoy or not, and even 6" radius from a point is a 12" diameter circle).
3) The distance my units can travel across the terrain isn't known in advance, so moving too slowly is risky.
4) The amount of time left in the game is unknown, so I don't know if I will have time to advance slowly or reorganize my squads
5) The degree of Force Morale damage (if any) that would result from losing teams (e.g. scout teams or maneuver teams) is unknown in advance.
6) The activation dice I will roll are uncertain and I may not be able to activate scout teams, tanks, or senior platoon leadership reliably.
40k doesn't hide information in the same way; even where the information is hidden behind a dice roll, mechanics are usually provided to mitigate said dice roll results.
Yes Unit. Thank you. Perfect example of how hidden information doesn't just add depth to the game play but vastly increases tactical decision making AND playing against the player instead of the game.
This is a big of a strawman, isn't it?
You've taken a 40K game and boiled it down to the choices in a single round and tried to compare it to CoC where the game has yet to begin. You took away all of the prior decisions in 40K that lead to that point, but offer the chance to obscure those decisions in CoC and offering up false choices, because in reality they WOULD result in one "good" choice just like 40K based on known information.
No. Because it's an assessment of the single decision point. It doesn't matter how many decisions happened earlier in 40k. Right now you have a choice to make.
Just because there IS a best choice in CoC you cannot calculate it. You don't have enough information. Because of that it's not the math you are making a decision against. It's the opponent. This assuming I understand the example of a game I have not played before correctly.
I am comparing it to the end of the CoC game. The enemy hasn't deployed all their assets, but I have seized all but 1 (and one decoy) JOP and am advancing on the final objective.
Similarly, in 40k example, I am two or so turns away from the end of the game.
Explain how if the safest option is the best option, that it would then not also be the optimal one?
I didn't say safest option is also the best one. I said safest option grants a reasonably safe/guaranteed results, less safe one grants the same result with lower odds but unlike the first option can also reward the player with a better result. Is it better to overkill a model or to have the chance of killing two? That's what I mean with safest option not always being the best ones, it's a dice base game and sometimes accepting some risks (in this case avoiding a guaranteed result for a not guaranteed higher result) might lead to an higher reward.
See above. You can literally do the mathhammer on each of those rolls and determine which target is most likely to cause the most damage. You don't know how the dice are going to land, but you CAN pick the option that STATISTICALLY is going to go in your favor. And with rerolls and other 40k stuff you're unlikely to be at the total mercy of the dice. You can stack that in your favor too.
Nobody is saying all choices should be equally good. They are saying there are things that can be done to shift or hide the values. If in a game I have 2 creatures I can attack with. 1 deals 2 damage. But the other deals 3 damage but I take 1 damage every time it swings. Which is better? One has a COST. And that cost changes the equation. 40k doesn't have costs. If as Unit explained you don't know things then you cannot calculate the equation.
All choices shouldn't be equal. As many choices as possible should be Interesting.
It doesn't matter what option is statistically better, unless the odds gap between the choices is really huge. Say it's 90% for the safest option and 50% for the less safe one, now the choice is interesting. Looks interesting enough to me at least (since interesting is another subjective concept ).
In every game in which decisions matter there's always an option that statistically is going to go in the player's favor, the safest one. Even in games with no randomness at all, like chess.
AA gives more power to the player because you are interrupted. A strategy cannot be executed in perfect unison. The opponent has a chance to interrupt which cause you to start to have to take your opponents next actions into consideration with your own actions. THAT creates a element of unknowns. Not the best one. It wouldn't make 40k the deepest greatest tactical game in the world. But it gives it SOMETHING and something is better than the nothing it has now.
And hey, as a experiment, why not play a couple games of Necromunda IGOUGO? Whoever goes first will go with all of their models/units and then the opponent can go with all of theirs. Tell me if it made the game any better or any worse.
It gives you the illusion of power. If I know in advance or immediately without thinking what pawn I need to move and what to do with it, based on the previous interaction, those are not interesting choices and the game is still self driven. Which can be ok, since Necromunda is basically designed to be a self driven narrative adventure, with randomness having a significant impact since the majority of rolls are single dice rolls with no re-rolls. Necromunda without AA would be pretty close to 40k since its core rules are pretty similar. 40k works pretty well for me. Now I don't like playing exact identical games and AA in Necromunda contributes to differentiate it a bit from 40k, but it's certainly not the reason why I enjoy it and certainly AA in Necromunda doesn't prevent the game for being quite self driven.
AA just let players use their models more frequently, instead of doing nothing but rolling for saves for half an hour, which for some people is unbereable.
AA could give more power to the player, but randomness has to have a much higher impact compared to the AA mechanics in Necromunda. Like random activations. Now the player has to be creative as it can't go with the obvious option, it has to get the best out of every interaction. But someone could argue that if the player can't choose his activations then it actually has less power. Maybe, but the game would be certainly more deep and based on skills than a pure AA. Power to the players and a game based on skills are on completely different levels, you can have the former and not the latter, or viceversa, or both.
AA could give more power to the player, but randomness has to have a much higher impact compared to the AA mechanics in Necromunda. Like random activations. Now the player has to be creative as it can't go with the obvious option, it has to get the best out of every interaction. But someone could argue that if the player can't choose his activations then it actually has less power. Maybe, but the game would be certainly more deep and based on skills than a pure AA. Power to the players and a game based on skills are on completely different levels, you can have the former and not the latter, or viceversa, or both.
It's interesting you mention this. We've been playing bolt action recently and prior to this, another excellent little warlord game called 'test of honour' - its a samurai warband game.
They both have slightly different takes on random activation.
Bolt action is 'pull a token out of a bag and if its your colour, activate one of your units thst hasn't been activated yet'.
Test of honor is slightly different. Its an aa game. You have samurai tokens and ashigaru tokens. When it's your turn you pull a token out of the bag and that's what you have to work with. You might have the perfect plan and positioning for your spearman- pull a samurai token. Improvise and adapt.
I loved it. That kind of chaos and 'fog of war' really added something to the game. Its not about reducing player choice - i found it tested other aspects of my play. I'd been so used to my games being essentially a 'controlled system' that I struggled for a while with having to adapt on the fly to a game state that was often halfway out of my control. You tend to see this in historical games quite a bit where often you are not *fully* in control of your army or how it operates. Definitely a positive eye opener for me.
Yeah those are good examples. More power to the player can really be the illusion of power. Just like there is always a safest choice in 40k that statistically goes in the player's favor, there's always a safest choice in a pure AA game where there's a specific activation that statistically goes in the player's favor as well.
Randomizing activations eliminates this feature instead, and now the game is definitely not self driven, nor is entirely, or even mostly, resolved on luck. Even if the players aren't in full control of their armies.
AA could give more power to the player, but randomness has to have a much higher impact compared to the AA mechanics in Necromunda. Like random activations. Now the player has to be creative as it can't go with the obvious option, it has to get the best out of every interaction. But someone could argue that if the player can't choose his activations then it actually has less power. Maybe, but the game would be certainly more deep and based on skills than a pure AA. Power to the players and a game based on skills are on completely different levels, you can have the former and not the latter, or viceversa, or both.
It's interesting you mention this. We've been playing bolt action recently and prior to this, another excellent little warlord game called 'test of honour' - its a samurai warband game.
They both have slightly different takes on random activation.
Bolt action is 'pull a token out of a bag and if its your colour, activate one of your units thst hasn't been activated yet'.
Test of honor is slightly different. Its an aa game. You have samurai tokens and ashigaru tokens. When it's your turn you pull a token out of the bag and that's what you have to work with. You might have the perfect plan and positioning for your spearman- pull a samurai token. Improvise and adapt.
I loved it. That kind of chaos and 'fog of war' really added something to the game. Its not about reducing player choice - i found it tested other aspects of my play. I'd been so used to my games being essentially a 'controlled system' that I struggled for a while with having to adapt on the fly to a game state that was often halfway out of my control. You tend to see this in historical games quite a bit where often you are not *fully* in control of your army or how it operates. Definitely a positive eye opener for me.
You (and Blackie) should try War Of The Ring. All actions on your turn are determined by dice rolls at the start of the round and the Free People player always has less action dice and more restricted choices than the Shadow players.
I've not mentioned it much in this conversation because its not a wargame in the same vein as 40k, especially since there are only two factions, the map and model set up is always the same etc but at lot of what we're discussing (strategy/tactics, AA, multiple paths to victory, difficult and interesting choices) are present in it and it excels at all of them while being incredibly balanced. Last I checked the win rates Shadow won 56% of the time.
You (and Blackie) should try War Of The Ring. All actions on your turn are determined by dice rolls at the start of the round and the Free People player always has less action dice and more restricted choices than the Shadow players.
I've not mentioned it much in this conversation because its not a wargame in the same vein as 40k, especially since there are only two factions, the map and model set up is always the same etc but at lot of what we're discussing (strategy/tactics, AA, multiple paths to victory, difficult and interesting choices) are present in it and it excels at all of them while being incredibly balanced. Last I checked the win rates Shadow won 56% of the time.
Thanks for the recommend! I've heard of it bit have never played. Its the mass battle lotr game, right? I've got about 250 warriors of rohan that I keep on standby as my pseudo-'historical' humans and have a fondness for gw's lotr and sbg rules - the old sbg is for me, one of the best rules sets to ever come out of gw.
What you are describing with your risk/reward scenario is still math. And the gap doesn't need to be huge. It needs to be anything. You can prove which is more likely and then you should do the more likely.
But, EVEN IF we were to say you are 100% correct (which I am not) what this always boils down to in these discussions is people on your side of the argument have to present rare specific scenarios in order to say "See! What about now! Doesn't the game have interesting choices now!" But if the game only gains these interesting choices in these rare specific scenarios then how often do they come up in a game? Of your # of units * number of phases they act in decision points what % of them are these specific situations that are interesting (which again, I am not agreeing with you that the one you present is that) ?
Lets figure out some variables. If we are talking about having say... 12 units in an army. They all move, 3 are psykers, lets say 10 can shoot, and 9 can melee.
Thats 34 simplified decision points turn 1 player 1. Not accounting for player unit losses, (34 * 6) * 2 = 408 basic decision points in a game.
How often is your specific scenario coming about? Once a turn? Twice? Lets call it 5 because I am feeling crazy generous. 60 decision points out of 408. It's just over 14%. Again. 5 a turn is me being SUPER generous. Lets remember that turn 1 is basically just auto pilot. NONE of these scenarios are showing up then. And judging by this thread ( https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801802.page) these decisions might spike in turn 2 and then decrease each turn after with turn 3 and 4 being increasing odds of the game being a foregone conclusion.
So even my super generous 5 a turn is probably more likely 0 turn 1, 5 turn 2, 4, 3, 2, 1. 30 a game. Not 60. or 7% of all decisions.
So based on the debatable and highly faulty idea that your scenario isn't just math with an optimal solution, and my generous idea that that scenario arrives regularly throughout the game, it still makes up less than 10% of all game play. Great.
I see what you are doing trying to come up with terms like the illusion of power to counter the concept of the illusion of choice. I even appreciate it to an extent.
But no. The illusion of choice is an ACTUAL thing. It's studied. It's understood. The designers of WoW talked about how the old talent trees were a bad mechanic because they created a lot of illusion of choice which is why they ditched them.
"Illusion of power" is nonsensical.
When a turn is interrupted you have to be able to predict what the other player is going to do. People are different from mechanics because they can be tricked. They have agency. The moment the calculation is trying to think what would that guy do instead of what are the mechanics going to be you enter into an entirely different set of circumstances.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am comparing it to the end of the CoC game. The enemy hasn't deployed all their assets, but I have seized all but 1 (and one decoy) JOP and am advancing on the final objective.
Similarly, in 40k example, I am two or so turns away from the end of the game.
Just to foot-stomp this harder:
It's the end of both games. In one game, only the enemy's rough position is known and there is still uncertainty even with regard to where the enemy simply is. This means that scouting/reconnaissance/feeling out the enemy position is still necessary, even late in to the game, due to the paucity of information. A good number of my "how to address this situation as the attacking player" ideas involve using some combination of units to gather more information - and, where they don't, they essentially involve gambling that you've chosen correctly.
And do you know what? It's even more complex than that; the enemy may have made it obvious which JOP was a decoy earlier in the game (e.g. by deploying troops off of one) or made a mistake and deployed one badly (which means either I don't have to worry about it or it's clearly the decoy, since troops coming off of it will be in a bad position to stop my attack). In these cases, I can execute my attack with more knowledge - knowledge that was gained through interplay with the opponent (in this case the opponent's decisions when placing or deploying off of JOPs).
In 40k? Especially during the last two turns? You know EVERYTHING. There is no hidden information from either player. You know the exact movement rates of units, you know every stratagem, you know that no more models are coming on, you know the contents of the enemy force, you know how the terrain impacts movement down to the inch, etc. The risk-reward calculation is easy; it's simply a matter of plugging all the variables into the formula. What sets GOOD players apart from GREAT players is the great players understand the details of the risk-reward equation; they may account for more variables than their opponent, or their opponent may overlook a crucial variable that the GREAT player is planning to exploit (usually because it is obscure e.g. an unknown stratagem).
Kcalehc wrote: But, do ALL decisions have to be 'interesting' ones, to make it a good game? Surely not, there must be a break even point of some sort in there.
No I would argue that all games have some decisions that are not interesting. If there is one single action that can win you the game a game made up entirely of interesting choices boils down to that coup de grace that ends it all. But, I would argue that the more often the interesting choice and the more interesting they are the better the game play becomes.
Having less than 10% of your choices be interesting is a gak ratio no mater how you look at it. If it was flipped and 90% of the choices were interesting it would be hard to notice the 10%.
I 
.
