Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.
Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.
40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.
This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
But that isn't the case at all. I play a competitive chaos soup list that is almost all troop choices. I don't think the rest of the argument can be valid if you've argued from a flawed premise. I don't disagree that individual books could do with better internal balance so that other troops/units are more viable. That said current competitive 40k isn't a min troop, max other good units for all armies.
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
But that isn't the case at all. I play a competitive chaos soup list that is almost all troop choices. I don't think the rest of the argument can be valid if you've argued from a flawed premise. I don't disagree that individual books could do with better internal balance so that other troops/units are more viable. That said current competitive 40k isn't a min troop, max other good units for all armies.
Well considering that was not the premise of my statement, but was merely a piece of supporting evidence, sorry but even if that point isn't 100% correct for every list that wouldn't discount my conclusion.
And the competitive scene, which shouldn't even be called that because those are the least competitive games that exist, is largely netlist spamhammer. Sure there are a few other forms of cheese, but they are the minority.
My point being there are very few interesting or varied interactions in 40k leaving no creativity or reason to use different options in list building. Even when GW tries to have some interactions they tend to be lazy, the only one for the entire army, so once again shoehorning down a single path.
Well considering that was not the premise of my statement, but was merely a piece of supporting evidence, sorry but even if that point isn't 100% correct for every list that wouldn't discount my conclusion.
And the competitive scene, which shouldn't even be called that because those are the least competitive games that exist, is largely netlist spamhammer. Sure there are a few other forms of cheese, but they are the minority.
My point being there are very few interesting or varied interactions in 40k leaving no creativity or reason to use different options in list building. Even when GW tries to have some interactions they tend to be lazy, the only one for the entire army, so once again shoehorning down a single path.
So I'm curious about a few things. The first regarding the idea of netlist spamhammer, someone originates those ideas right? Ultimately they tend to spawn from the top end and trickle down. And granted we saw at Adepticon this weekend a massive spam list win the overall with 7 Flyrants. I won't disagree that spam occurs but it isn't the only viable build out there. Some Eldar and Chaos lists as well as some Imperial lists tend to favor a wider variety of units - it just depends on the internal balance of the books available.
Second question - what would be a varied or interesting interaction to you, that exists in the framework of the current rules? I provide that caveat because without it I think you're looking for more of a rules re-write as opposed to changes in list building structure. Personally I feel like I have lots of interesting interactions in my list - I have several units that I need to choose from for available buffs (auras, stratagems, and psychic powers) which to me is an interesting option, I have different layers of support I can provide to different units and making those choices is a key element of my army.
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.
Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.
40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.
This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.
Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.
This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.
Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.
Looking at my Blood Angels Codex I can see a fair few ways different units interact with each other. A big blob of Death Company dropping in with a Sanguinary Priest, Ancient, Chaplain, Captain and Lieutenant to support them are gonna hurt.
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.
Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.
40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.
This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.
Except this objectively wrong. Most of the top tier lists involve heavy synergy between units with buffs, strategems, screens, pyskers, army special rules, chapter tactics, etc. . It's not always as cut and dry as something like warmachine, but to say this game doesn't heavily reward synergy and combos is to pretty much wilfully ignore what is doing well in the tournament scene. Even the most simplistic of gunline armies still use basic synergy between buff characters and screens to keep the firepower online.
Is it on the level of Big Blue chess or something? Probably not, but it's hardly just show up, plop list down, ?????, Profit. Even something as braindead simple as the guilleman murderball took at least some brains to win anything other than a basic kill points mission.
Armies in 40k don't get win conditions. You don't spend time countering moves back and forth until a climax occurs. Instead, you mostly just stack aura buffs and shoot your opponent off the table before they get a chance to do otherwise. Because of this, and because GW does not know how to design good counterplay or counter mechanisms (no, just having a high number of shots does not make an anti-horde gun), most tools available to a faction end up being distilled down to linear numerical evaluations that leave little room for creativity.
It would probably take me a minimum of 10 minutes typing fast just to list all the synergies and various buff auras in my competitive 1500 point lists.
Fafnir wrote: Armies in 40k don't get win conditions. You don't spend time countering moves back and forth until a climax occurs. Instead, you mostly just stack aura buffs and shoot your opponent off the table before they get a chance to do otherwise. Because of this, and because GW does not know how to design good counterplay or counter mechanisms (no, just having a high number of shots does not make an anti-horde gun), most tools available to a faction end up being distilled down to linear numerical evaluations that leave little room for creativity.
This is funny to me because one of the first things you should learn to do in 8th is find ways to shut down shooting early to counter play heavy shooting lists.
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.
Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.
40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.
This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.
Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.
This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.
Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.
I, uh, play magic competitively.
I don't know what kind of level you played at, but 40 Goblin guides would be an utterly awful deck. 40 Lightning bolts would be a much better stab at a 'Spam deck', which would likely win T4, but would have several very easy counters, which could easily be sideboarded in.
40k is missing sideboards. Badly.
And sure, Magic is Netdecky, but less so than 40k, there are new decks popping up every protour, that's how the meta changes, and it's only about 4 months between releases, which also shakes up the scene again. 40k doesn't manage, and couldn't manage that, it would be like re-releasing half the codexes every year.
At least 7th had fluff at the core of its synergies. I predict that by the time 8th is done it will be looked on with far more contempt than 7th. Let's stick a pin in that one and revisit later...
I have less of a problem with synergies than a host of other things I hate about 8th (100% from my perspective):
-Power Levels because it makes for stuck on stupid lists
-Number-of-books-needed-to-play creep makes referencing a nightmare.
-Command Points are a fiddly mechanic that slows the game down and can cause thought paralysis, especially with new players... and yet more accounting.
-Lack of tactical depth even for a GW game.
-GW using a release and errata system to attempt balance rather than producing good rules.
-People who try to argue with me about any of the above because I have a right to hold my own opinions. I am fine with someone having a different perspective but that does not mean anyone needs to be converted.
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.
Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.
40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.
This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.
Huh. This isn't true.
After all, you need tanks to back up your guardsmen. Guardsmen+Scout Sentinels+Artillery have very good synergy that makes a very powerful list.
Fafnir wrote: Armies in 40k don't get win conditions. You don't spend time countering moves back and forth until a climax occurs. Instead, you mostly just stack aura buffs and shoot your opponent off the table before they get a chance to do otherwise. Because of this, and because GW does not know how to design good counterplay or counter mechanisms (no, just having a high number of shots does not make an anti-horde gun), most tools available to a faction end up being distilled down to linear numerical evaluations that leave little room for creativity.
This is funny to me because one of the first things you should learn to do in 8th is find ways to shut down shooting early to counter play heavy shooting lists.
Usually by shooting first.
I mean, I'll throw in an assassin or two or Celestine to tie things up, but it's the frontloaded firepower that does all the real heavy lifting.
-People who try to argue with me about any of the above because I have a right to hold my own opinions. I am fine with someone having a different perspective but that does not mean anyone needs to be converted.
This reminds me of a Dilbert comic where in an employee review, the boss says "Your biggest problem is that you argue with people who are smarter than you".
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.
Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.
40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.
This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.
Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.
This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.
Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.
I, uh, play magic competitively.
I don't know what kind of level you played at, but 40 Goblin guides would be an utterly awful deck. 40 Lightning bolts would be a much better stab at a 'Spam deck', which would likely win T4, but would have several very easy counters, which could easily be sideboarded in.
40k is missing sideboards. Badly.
And sure, Magic is Netdecky, but less so than 40k, there are new decks popping up every protour, that's how the meta changes, and it's only about 4 months between releases, which also shakes up the scene again. 40k doesn't manage, and couldn't manage that, it would be like re-releasing half the codexes every year.
I don't play anymore. No idea what you'd consider competitive, I was a grinder but not on the pro tour.
But yeah, I figure 40 Goblin Guides would have been pretty good when that card was in standard. I don't know if you played, but a lot of decks were midrangey Jund gak and slower Jace gak and if you could take tons of Goblin Guides that would have been pretty good against (and in) those Jund decks and pretty great against Jace decks. And that's just a random example, I'm sure you get the point. 40 of a card is a whole lot but there are certainly cards you'd play well in excess of 4 of if the rules allowed it. Because some cards are always better than others, and some cards are a whole lot better than others. Goblin Guide probably isn't even an extreme example of that, just something that would be decent enough if you had 40.
I wouldn't say 40k or Magic is less netlist-focused. In MTG, formats change and metas evolve because of new set releases. In 40k, the meta evolves because of new edition/codex/supplement releases and new/different tournament rules sets (see Flyrants at LVO vs Adepticon or ETC).. Same deal really.
While I agree with those that say your magic analogy is flawed because the rules prevent spam (you might not play 40 of the same card, but 10? Absolutely there would be times you would if you could I think your premise that different synergies would create more variety is solid right now too many synergies effect all units, rather than only improving some units or unit types.
Danny slag wrote: Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.
But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.
Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.
Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.
40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.
This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.
Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.
This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.
Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.
I, uh, play magic competitively.
I don't know what kind of level you played at, but 40 Goblin guides would be an utterly awful deck. 40 Lightning bolts would be a much better stab at a 'Spam deck', which would likely win T4, but would have several very easy counters, which could easily be sideboarded in.
40k is missing sideboards. Badly.
And sure, Magic is Netdecky, but less so than 40k, there are new decks popping up every protour, that's how the meta changes, and it's only about 4 months between releases, which also shakes up the scene again. 40k doesn't manage, and couldn't manage that, it would be like re-releasing half the codexes every year.
Actually, 30 lightning bolts is why WoTC instituted the 4 card maximum. in a 40 card deck, which they then increased to 60. There are currently 2 cards that can be spammed in such a manner with rumors that there is about to be a third ( and which make Balthor edh decks horrible to play, btw).
Actually, I think that 40k suffers from a certain amount of skornergy, to borrow a WM\H term, in that combo pieces can be removed easier than some people think. I am reminded of how battle can be dictated by terrain;
'we can get to the enemy quicker if we can use that bridge,' from a young commander.
'What bridge?' from an old sergeant.
They watch the enemy destroy the bridge.
'Oh'
You can never really have sideboards in the same way as magic, instead you would do better with a “multiple” list format li warmachine or multiple sideboards at least. Swapping in individual units etc is a nightmare. It would be better to say in a game you can have 3 detachments in your army, one of these not to exceed x amount of points can be a side board detachment, it can be swapped out for your other sideboard detachment of equal points. Beyond that you would need to go multiple lists points just make things wonky otherwise.
Breng77 wrote: You can never really have sideboards in the same way as magic, instead you would do better with a “multiple” list format li warmachine or multiple sideboards at least. Swapping in individual units etc is a nightmare. It would be better to say in a game you can have 3 detachments in your army, one of these not to exceed x amount of points can be a side board detachment, it can be swapped out for your other sideboard detachment of equal points. Beyond that you would need to go multiple lists points just make things wonky otherwise.
Warmachine has 2 solutions that can be stolen\borrowed.
1. The 2 list format
2. 'Specialists' or a percentage of lists that can be swapped out between games.
Danny slag wrote: part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used
This leads me to think that you don't know what you're talking about. If, as you suggest, an army spamming one good unit is all that's required for tournament success then why haven't you won any national-level events? Why do the same group of people consistently do well when anyone can take a spam army to the event?
Danny slag wrote: part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used
This leads me to think that you don't know what you're talking about. If, as you suggest, an army spamming one good unit is all that's required for tournament success then why haven't you won any national-level events? Why do the same group of people consistently do well when anyone can take a spam army to the event?
Potentially because those people are wealthy enough to afford the constantly changing "Best List", also wealthy enough to be able to afford to travel and participate in those events, geographically located well enough to do so, and perhaps more importantly are interested enough in the penis mesuring contest that is competative 40k to want to do all the above at no small expense?
We're not a huge hobby. We're an expensive hobby. And matched play is a smaller part of the whole hobby, and competiting at high level matched play is an even smaller part.
I mean, our biggest torny ever is a whole 500 people.
It's not too suprising the top 32 to are relatively consistant.
I think using MTG as a baseline is a HORRIBLE idea. MTG is constantly creating new mechanics, and pumps out new cards every freakin' quarter of a year. In Warhammer, you will see maybe a dozen models in a YEAR, spread out over every faction (but mostly in Space Marines.)
MTG is so fluid in its meta because of the fact there is literally thousands upon thousands of unique cards, something Warhammer could never come close to.
No, 40k does not need more CCG-style synergies. The problem with 40k is that it is a CCG with cards you have to paint yourself, not a wargame. To fix the game GW needs to push it back in a direction towards things like movement and positioning being important, not add more "I cast tactical marine and buff it with chapter master and plasma gun and I deal 40,000 damage to you, I win" mechanics.
Danny slag wrote: part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used
This leads me to think that you don't know what you're talking about. If, as you suggest, an army spamming one good unit is all that's required for tournament success then why haven't you won any national-level events? Why do the same group of people consistently do well when anyone can take a spam army to the event?
Potentially because those people are wealthy enough to afford the constantly changing "Best List", also wealthy enough to be able to afford to travel and participate in those events, geographically located well enough to do so, and perhaps more importantly are interested enough in the penis mesuring contest that is competative 40k to want to do all the above at no small expense?
We're not a huge hobby. We're an expensive hobby. And matched play is a smaller part of the whole hobby, and competiting at high level matched play is an even smaller part.
I mean, our biggest torny ever is a whole 500 people.
It's not too suprising the top 32 to are relatively consistant.
Travelling to major events in the UK and buying/updating an army once or twice a year is hardly an expense beyond most people's means.
Try playing against some people at that level and you'll find there is much more player skill involved in their success than Danny was suggesting.
The biggest difference between the people consistently at the top tables and everyone else is the amount and level of practice they get. Most of them are getting ~4-5 games at week against excellent opponents.
Peregrine wrote: No, 40k does not need more CCG-style synergies. The problem with 40k is that it is a CCG with cards you have to paint yourself, not a wargame. To fix the game GW needs to push it back in a direction towards things like movement and positioning being important, not add more "I cast tactical marine and buff it with chapter master and plasma gun and I deal 40,000 damage to you, I win" mechanics.
Peregrine wrote: No, 40k does not need more CCG-style synergies. The problem with 40k is that it is a CCG with cards you have to paint yourself, not a wargame. To fix the game GW needs to push it back in a direction towards things like movement and positioning being important, not add more "I cast tactical marine and buff it with chapter master and plasma gun and I deal 40,000 damage to you, I win" mechanics.
Peregrine wrote: No, 40k does not need more CCG-style synergies. The problem with 40k is that it is a CCG with cards you have to paint yourself, not a wargame. To fix the game GW needs to push it back in a direction towards things like movement and positioning being important, not add more "I cast tactical marine and buff it with chapter master and plasma gun and I deal 40,000 damage to you, I win" mechanics.
I know not to take your opinion seriously because the bulk of it is baseless whining but I find it tremendously entertaining that you don't think movement or positioning matters. My close combat army thrives 100% on proper positioning pre- and post charge, proper deployment and movement to open my screens at the right time. I get that in your likely stale meta you probably don't see it but this is just baseless. You can see how wrong it is just by reading up on the final table at Adepticon.
No, 40k does not need more CCG-style synergies. The problem with 40k is that it is a CCG with cards you have to paint yourself, not a wargame. To fix the game GW needs to push it back in a direction towards things like movement and positioning being important, not add more "I cast tactical marine and buff it with chapter master and plasma gun and I deal 40,000 damage to you, I win" mechanics.
>Positioning is not important
>Just position your tactical marines next to your chapter master but also in optimal range of your desired target and such that the chapter master also buffs other units
Farseer_V2 wrote: I find it tremendously entertaining that you don't think movement or positioning matters.
I find it tremendously entertaining that you think movement and positioning matter in a game where so many units can either deploy directly into close range shooting or a decent chance of a turn 1 charge or simply have enough raw speed to go wherever they want (including a turn-1 charge), and where terrain has been made almost irrelevant by ridiculous movement and LOS rules, and where flanking/hitting rear armor on vehicles/etc have all been removed from the game. GW has relentlessly diminished the importance of movement and positioning in favor of a CCG style "I cast 'charge with space marines' on your unit" system. Rarely do you have to plan a game of move vs. counter-move, you just declare which target you are attacking and roll dice to see if it works.
And no, the existence of screens don't make movement and positioning matter, just like the existence of blocking in MTG doesn't make it a game of movement and positioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ushtarador wrote: >Positioning is not important
>Just position your tactical marines next to your chapter master but also in optimal range of your desired target and such that the chapter master also buffs other units
Do you honestly not see the irony?
That is not positioning, it's casting your MTG spells. You know the formation to use ("blob up everything within the aura"), you're just executing it on the table. This isn't like X-Wing where you're trying to plan out complex maneuvers and out-guess your opponent. Perhaps if you are impressed by this level of "depth" in positioning and movement strategy you should try playing a non-GW game and see how much better things can be?
No, if you play against a good opponent you can't just blob everything around the aura, because you will be out of position, you will get your whole army tied up in cc, you will not reach the objectives you need to get.
Just last game I made a mistake of blobbing up my Tau too much and 8 Shining Spears engaged everything in CC, which made me lose the game. If I had positioned more smartly he would only have gotten 2 units at most.
Perhaps if you are impressed by this level of "depth" in positioning and movement strategy you should try playing a non-GW game and see how much better things can be?
I want to play 40k because I love the fluff and the models. I don't deny there are games with more depth and movement strategy, but 8th is absolutely good enough for competitive games, and far better than you make it out to be.
And you know, maybe stop posting on 40k forums if you just hate the game?
Farseer_V2 wrote: I find it tremendously entertaining that you don't think movement or positioning matters.
I find it tremendously entertaining that you think movement and positioning matter in a game where so many units can either deploy directly into close range shooting or a decent chance of a turn 1 charge or simply have enough raw speed to go wherever they want (including a turn-1 charge), and where terrain has been made almost irrelevant by ridiculous movement and LOS rules, and where flanking/hitting rear armor on vehicles/etc have all been removed from the game. GW has relentlessly diminished the importance of movement and positioning in favor of a CCG style "I cast 'charge with space marines' on your unit" system. Rarely do you have to plan a game of move vs. counter-move, you just declare which target you are attacking and roll dice to see if it works.
And no, the existence of screens don't make movement and positioning matter, just like the existence of blocking in MTG doesn't make it a game of movement and positioning.
Fair points all, none supported by actual game play but there's not an argument to be had. I don't 'argue' with people who have no interest in taking a look at things from outside their already established viewpoint.
To the OP's point, ultimately I disagree. I think 40k has strong synergies, and generally I think 8th is a solid edition. Are there things I'd like to improve? Certainly. And as they release more codexes I think things are improving and they're certainly learning their lessons from earlier books.
Perhaps if you are impressed by this level of "depth" in positioning and movement strategy you should try playing a non-GW game and see how much better things can be?
I want to play 40k because I love the fluff and the models. I don't deny there are games with more depth and movement strategy, but 8th is absolutely good enough for competitive games, and far better than you make it out to be.
And you know, maybe stop posting on 40k forums if you just hate the game?
But if he did that then how would he get to feel clever and above it all on the daily? He might actually have to do something positive instead of making the same "clever" post about how 40k is more like a CCG than a wargame over and over.
You know, it's funny, I rarely see anyone posting things like "all {poster} does is talk about how they like 40k, why do they have to do it so much". But when the subject is criticism of GW or 40k there's inevitably a crowd lining up to complain about "why do you have to post that so much". It's a double standard that is simultaneously amusing and irritating, and I think it says a lot about certain GW-apologist elements of the community.
Peregrine wrote: You know, it's funny, I rarely see anyone posting things like "all {poster} does is talk about how they like 40k, why do they have to do it so much". But when the subject is criticism of GW or 40k there's inevitably a crowd lining up to complain about "why do you have to post that so much". It's a double standard that is simultaneously amusing and irritating, and I think it says a lot about certain GW-apologist elements of the community.
No it says a lot about the quality and nature of your posts. Because literally the only thing you do is post things that include 'CAAC' and 'CCG'. Your arguments are stale and oft repeated and you have no actual interest in being challenged. Instead (best I can tell) you spend most of your time on Dakka to A) feel persecuted by GW apologists and B) feel superior to them because you've so obviously seen the flaws they miss. Perhaps if you engaged in discourse as opposed to talking at people you wouldn't get the same response.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Your arguments are stale and oft repeated and you have no actual interest in being challenged.
Nonsense. I have plenty of interest in being challenged, it's not my fault the challenges inevitably suck. It's almost always some form of "WAACTFG TOURNAMENTS SUCK BEER AND PRETZELS" or "STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE ALL THE TIME", with an occasional interesting debate on game design.
That does not mean he is right. There is positioning in 40K It is simply not in the milimetres mostly so therefore it does not count.
40k is not missing synergies, you simply discard the ones that are there because they are too overt or simple.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Your arguments are stale and oft repeated and you have no actual interest in being challenged.
Nonsense. I have plenty of interest in being challenged, it's not my fault the challenges inevitably suck. It's almost always some form of "WAACTFG TOURNAMENTS SUCK BEER AND PRETZELS" or "STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE ALL THE TIME", with an occasional interesting debate on game design.
And there you go - talking at people rather than talking to them. I'd love to be challenged! If only there were someone who was my equal to challenge me. Alas.
Farseer_V2 wrote: And there you go - talking at people rather than talking to them. I'd love to be challenged! If only there were someone who was my equal to challenge me. Alas.
Said by the person who jumped straight to an accusation of "baseless whining" in their very first interaction with me here. Forgive me if I don't bother believing that you're here to have a good-faith discussion of anything.
Farseer_V2 wrote: And there you go - talking at people rather than talking to them. I'd love to be challenged! If only there were someone who was my equal to challenge me. Alas.
Said by the person who jumped straight to an accusation of "baseless whining" in their very first interaction with me here. Forgive me if I don't bother believing that you're here to have a good-faith discussion of anything.
Yeah I mean at this point you've established a pattern. If you'd like I can go through and find several quotes that give me what one might consider the 'main stream' thinking if you will. Unfortunately this isn't an anonymous image board so people develop reputations based on the history of their posts. The worst part of it all is I think you're right about probably half the things you talk about it and I'd venture there might be more but its hard to form any discourse with you because you're just as like to call things a 'joke' or suggest mental inferiority as opposed to actually elucidating your point.
8th is an edition about spacing. Good lord does space matter.
How many lascannons did I just deploy my tank in range of?
How many units are cluttered together that those berserkers are about to pacman through?
Is that Devastator squad in or out of my commander's 6" bubble while he's wandering off to counter-assault some poor sods?
Did I properly wrap my lines? Did my opponent differ his deep strike in hopes that I will scatter more on turn 2? Did I fall for that, again?
Why is my commander standing 2mm in front of the line of guys he is buffing? Ah crap, his screen was murdered and now he's dead.
How many of those bikes can I shoot off of that objective? How many can I shoot off before I shoot myself out of assaulting them and thus lose the objective?
MTG, and practically every other CCG, has always been about net decking. Once people realized they could have other people look at their ideas and critique them, and use that experience and perspective to evolve their decks... they began using it. "Competitive" events for those games usually boiled down to the "deck to beat" and the "deck that beats the deck to beat", and usually a few modifications to personalize the deck or try to get 1% more efficiency out of it.
Comparing playing a turn at Warhammer to a turn in MTG is completely out of line. I mean, I guess you could... if the tabletop in MTG could fight you back in addition to your opponent. "Oh, I'm sorry, your summon creature spell was put down just 2 inches too far away for you to attack my creature. Maybe when you get to your upkeep phase next turn and you can adjust it."
To get the real CCG feeling, you'd have to do things like eliminate the dead-man's land, play on a flat 6'x4' surface, and be able to place all of your stuff in such a way that it is simultaneously in range of all of the prime targets you want.
I think this whole discussion is really starting to showcase why the top players are the top players. They consider a lot of these variables quickly, and internally, and usually you don't catch on until it is too late to reverse your course... or of course, you lose. Some people never catch on. Those are the ones who say that luck simply was not with them, or their opponent just lucked into a really good position/dice rolls/whatever.
How many synergy you have largely depends on your faction. BA is up right now because they have great synergies right now and SM live and die based on their stacking bonuses. The fact that the best Imperial model is Gulliman, whose buff bubble gave rise to a couple new netlists is proof enough of that.
I hear your compliant about the lack of positioning and strategy. GW abstracted a lot of that away in favor of higher model counts, but I think they might have gone too far. I'd love to see firing arcs reimplemented a la WMH and alternating activations. Firing arcs would make placement matter again and AA means you can't just alpha-strike your opponents models on turn 1 any more.
That being said, 8th is the best ruleset we've gotten so far. It's 'good enough' until 9th rolls around and we get some of our tactical play back.
That does not mean he is right. There is positioning in 40K It is simply not in the milimetres mostly so therefore it does not count.
40k is not missing synergies, you simply discard the ones that are there because they are too overt or simple.
So am I to assume spamming the best deep striking units and area denial counts as proof positioning and movement actually matter? Any army with a stratagem, psychic power, or army trait that bends/breaks movements rules literally makes positioning and movement irrelevant. If your saying that only a few armies can do that. Well I agree and if you also say its the CP/Detachment rules that allow it to be broken. Then I somewhat agree. However, when a game bends/breaks movement rules it ends up breaking the game. All these so called best meta armies have ways that can break movement.
I don't care about synergies so much, as long as they don't break movement.
Earth127 wrote: That does not mean he is right. There is positioning in 40K It is simply not in the milimetres mostly so therefore it does not count.
40k is not missing synergies, you simply discard the ones that are there because they are too overt or simple.
You're making the mistake of presenting this as an all or nothing deal, as if 40k having even a single synergy or movement element, no matter how superficial or badly executed, means that it gets full credit for having those things. Obviously when we say "40k is a CCG" or "positioning doesn't matter" it's not a literal 100% absolute, it's a statement that what 40k does have is so shallow that it is barely worth acknowledging. Yes, technically you move your models, but usually only in the most obvious and simple ways.
And it isn't about not having movement in millimeters, it's about depth. 40k has very little advance planning, guessing move vs. counter-move, etc. It isn't like a game of BFG or Armada where you have to plan out moves multiple turns in advance, predicting the game state in the future so that your ships arrive at the correct position. Generally the place to move your units is extremely obvious, and GW keeps simplifying the process. Why worry about how to successfully move between LOS-blocking elements to protect your melee units until they close within charge range when you can just have a 48" threat range and essentially deploy directly into combat on turn 1? Why spend time debating which transport option is best for your plasma storm troopers when you can just deploy them within rapid fire range on turn 1? Why debate the defensive bonus of cover vs. the slower movement speed if you have to move through/away from it when terrain doesn't block LOS or slow movement or really do much of anything besides make the table look pretty? Why try to outflank when nothing has vulnerable armor facings or limited firing arcs or anything else beyond being an omnidirectional brick of HP and offensive dice? All of these are things that 40k used to have, before GW stripped them out in favor of making a CCG.
Earth127 wrote: That does not mean he is right. There is positioning in 40K It is simply not in the milimetres mostly so therefore it does not count.
40k is not missing synergies, you simply discard the ones that are there because they are too overt or simple.
You're making the mistake of presenting this as an all or nothing deal, as if 40k having even a single synergy or movement element, no matter how superficial or badly executed, means that it gets full credit for having those things. Obviously when we say "40k is a CCG" or "positioning doesn't matter" it's not a literal 100% absolute, it's a statement that what 40k does have is so shallow that it is barely worth acknowledging. Yes, technically you move your models, but usually only in the most obvious and simple ways.
And it isn't about not having movement in millimeters, it's about depth. 40k has very little advance planning, guessing move vs. counter-move, etc. It isn't like a game of BFG or Armada where you have to plan out moves multiple turns in advance, predicting the game state in the future so that your ships arrive at the correct position. Generally the place to move your units is extremely obvious, and GW keeps simplifying the process. Why worry about how to successfully move between LOS-blocking elements to protect your melee units until they close within charge range when you can just have a 48" threat range and essentially deploy directly into combat on turn 1? Why spend time debating which transport option is best for your plasma storm troopers when you can just deploy them within rapid fire range on turn 1? Why debate the defensive bonus of cover vs. the slower movement speed if you have to move through/away from it when terrain doesn't block LOS or slow movement or really do much of anything besides make the table look pretty? Why try to outflank when nothing has vulnerable armor facings or limited firing arcs or anything else beyond being an omnidirectional brick of HP and offensive dice? All of these are things that 40k used to have, before GW stripped them out in favor of making a CCG.
Plz hold tight I'll write a full anwser when I have time tomorrow/tonight.
They didn't strip out all of those technical nuances to make it a CCG. They stripped it out because having to reference 3 books to figure out what Rage did was really a thing. Having to read books in order of publication just to understand what assaulting through cover actually meant.
There were things that were genuinely bad in the game. Both synergies and circular chicken and egg rulings that really meant that it was going to be up to a d6 to determine who was right, this time the rule came up.
There were so many special rules floating and weapons floating around that the game was becoming a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book where you kept getting referenced to another page or another book to figure out what your models actually did. In that aspect, a CCG format is an improvement over the Choose Your Own Adventure.
As for the state of the current tabletop... movement is not only a turn 1 on thing, but it is also a deployment consideration, and also a list building consideration. I guess you could deploy all your stuff in a flat line and hope for the best. But I bet your opponent would love to have his say in that plan.
Most deployment zones are at least 12" deep, and yet most players only really look at 2 places on it: the closest point to the opponent, and the furthest point. Guys up front move, guys in the back sit.
We all look at those deep strikers lurking, and then routinely ignore them, only to complain that the plasma got into double-tap range of my snowflake model that makes the army work. Or we leave enough space for that flyrant to plop in right behind our screens. So much of this pain is self-inflicted. Some of it is GW inflicted.
And it isn't about not having movement in millimeters, it's about depth. 40k has very little advance planning, guessing move vs. counter-move, etc. It isn't like a game of BFG or Armada where you have to plan out moves multiple turns in advance, predicting the game state in the future so that your ships arrive at the correct position. Generally the place to move your units is extremely obvious . . .
If the place to move your units is obvious. . . that would seem to suggest that position matters. If you have a slow army and you have to get into position, then you have to plan in advance.
Peregrine wrote: Why worry about how to successfully move between LOS-blocking elements to protect your melee units until they close within charge range when you can just have a 48" threat range and essentially deploy directly into combat on turn 1?
How many units out of the hundreds available can do this? Can you deploy directly into combat with the best target on turn 1? If you can't, that's because screens exist. Screens only work by leveraging position. So again, position matters.
Peregrine wrote: Why spend time debating which transport option is best for your plasma storm troopers when you can just deploy them within rapid fire range on turn 1?
There are positives and negatives when discussing the Rhino vs. the Drop Pod. The differences matter.
Peregrine wrote: Why debate the defensive bonus of cover vs. the slower movement speed if you have to move through/away from it when terrain doesn't block LOS or slow movement or really do much of anything besides make the table look pretty?
Lots of terrain blocks vehicle movement, or MC movement. . .even bike movement. You can make terrain that blocks LOS. Use better terrain.
Why try to outflank when nothing has vulnerable armor facings or limited firing arcs or anything else beyond being an omnidirectional brick of HP and offensive dice?
It's true, armor facings have been simplified. I've come to appreciate the simplification. That's all.
All of these are things that 40k used to have, before GW stripped them out in favor of making a CCG.
"When" are you talking about when you say "used to have". The positioning game of 40K hasn't changed too much on the macro-level, Imo, through the past few editions.
If the place to move your units is obvious. . . that would seem to suggest that position matters. If you have a slow army and you have to get into position, then you have to plan in advance.
The problem is that if all the moves are obvious and require little to no consideration, then there's no purpose in player agency, you can remove movement from the equation because all of the optimal solutions have been found. Moreover, there's no counterplay involved, as even though you might know what your opponents' plans might be, their most optimal solution will almost always stay their most optimal solution regardless of how you act. It's all very spelled out, there's no guessing game between opponents.
Peregrine wrote: Why worry about how to successfully move between LOS-blocking elements to protect your melee units until they close within charge range when you can just have a 48" threat range and essentially deploy directly into combat on turn 1?
How many units out of the hundreds available can do this? Can you deploy directly into combat with the best target on turn 1? If you can't, that's because screens exist. Screens only work by leveraging position. So again, position matters.
There are enough units that can do that that it forces the metagame in a specific direction that makes those that can't not worth taking. Assault units that can't make a turn one charge or come from reserves don't matter. Screens don't really leverage position because the position of screens in 40k is, like most other positioning, very automatic. It matters, but not in a way that enhances decision making. Blobby bodies block back line artillery. You rarely have to make specific decisions in how your opponent will act with their tools, the optimal solution is, once again, always the same in this regard. And thus, positioning isn't really that important to the game because there's no relevant agency to it.
Peregrine wrote: Why spend time debating which transport option is best for your plasma storm troopers when you can just deploy them within rapid fire range on turn 1?
There are positives and negatives when discussing the Rhino vs. the Drop Pod. The differences matter.
Not a particularly good example. Drop pods are prohibitively overpriced and fulfil a different role. On the other hand, you never really need to debate differences in deployment for Tempestus Scions. Plasma drops will win every time.
I actually like removing vehicle facings, amoung other things, to streamline 40k's design and make the game actually playable. But Peregrine's definitely right in the point that positioning, as with most other elements of building lists and playing the game, are very binary, and remove the need for actual decision making or counterplay. The game moves too quickly in the early rounds to encourage deliberate pacing. Units that aren't effective across the entire table on turn one just aren't really worth bringing to it, which gives very little purpose to taking time to feel out your opponent's strategy and counter appropriately. Instead, you already know their strategy, it's the same as yours: wipe out everything that can hurt you on turn one.
Given that I know what I want to do when I deploy, I put my army down on the table... no consideration given to what my opponent is showing me.
I put my army down in the optimum configuration to deliver my fire base to his deployment zone, regardless of any variables his deployment may offer me.
I know there is only the optimum way to move up the table and fire at exposed targets. My opponent knows it, too. He sees me deploying in the hyper-aggressive stance that has come to be the standard in 8th edition. I give him no consideration as he asks silly questions like: can you see this squad of fluff hiding behind this building from that location? Why would I care about that? Those guys suck, but whatever, no I cannot see it.
Late in deployment credible threats go back to some corner of the field, but it is okay, my army can easily answer it. I have the firepower to remove anything he can put down, and I have +1 to my roll as I finished deploying 5 drops ago.
Turn 1: I rotate my guns towards the big monstrous thing he put down late. I now realize that it was hiding behind the screen of fluff guys that I cannot see. I cannot drop my deep strikers because he has choked off avenues of approach and created distance between his chaff and his guarded units. Well, looks like I am firing at crap that doesn't matter as much. Those big tanks that I responded to deployment earlier, but really don't do much but distract. I am distracted, just like I was earlier in deployment.
See, the optimum choices matter until the variables presented change what is optimal. A simple acknowledgment of someone locked into fomulaic thinking could be enough of a clue to help you understand how to exploit that to your advantage. Now his optimum choices wane and your unorthodox choices change the balance of power.
This type of maneuvering started all the way at list building when I chose to make a list with 8 drops to get that +1 to my "win first" roll, and he decided to come with 16 so he could be sure to space things out and be the last one deploying the critical units after my hand has been played.
Deep strikers can change this, but still... it has to be announced, and any good player has to recognize where those deep strikers are going to be invited to go.
If the place to move your units is obvious. . . that would seem to suggest that position matters. If you have a slow army and you have to get into position, then you have to plan in advance.
The problem is that if all the moves are obvious and require little to no consideration, then there's no purpose in player agency, you can remove movement from the equation because all of the optimal solutions have been found. Moreover, there's no counterplay involved, as even though you might know what your opponents' plans might be, their most optimal solution will almost always stay their most optimal solution regardless of how you act. It's all very spelled out, there's no guessing game between opponents.
Whether or not there's player agency is a different argument than "position matters". I'd argue that player agency (and position) matters quite a bit anyways, since I've seen new players botch a ton of placement/movement choices on the tabletop. Maybe it's obvious to you, but that doesn't make it non-existent. Moreover, while I can understand why one could see the placement for the shooting phase as being simplistic, the assault phase can be quite position-dependent with pile-ins, multiple units, heroic interventions, etc.
Peregrine wrote: Why worry about how to successfully move between LOS-blocking elements to protect your melee units until they close within charge range when you can just have a 48" threat range and essentially deploy directly into combat on turn 1?
How many units out of the hundreds available can do this? Can you deploy directly into combat with the best target on turn 1? If you can't, that's because screens exist. Screens only work by leveraging position. So again, position matters.
There are enough units that can do that that it forces the metagame in a specific direction that makes those that can't not worth taking. Assault units that can't make a turn one charge or come from reserves don't matter. Screens don't really leverage position because the position of screens in 40k is, like most other positioning, very automatic. It matters, but not in a way that enhances decision making. Blobby bodies block back line artillery. You rarely have to make specific decisions in how your opponent will act with their tools, the optimal solution is, once again, always the same in this regard. And thus, positioning isn't really that important to the game because there's no relevant agency to it.
Disagree very heavily. Hormagaunts can't necessarily make a turn one charge, but they can sure as heck change the shape of a game. As for screens, many armies don't have the mass of cheap bodies available, and have to use fewer, more expensive units to effectively screen, making their positioning more tricky. Play against a screen horde can be positionally challenging, do you attack along a focused area and hope for a quick punch-through, or do you attack along a wide area so that you cutoff escape by the protected units? The choices aren't always obvious.
Peregrine wrote: Why spend time debating which transport option is best for your plasma storm troopers when you can just deploy them within rapid fire range on turn 1?
There are positives and negatives when discussing the Rhino vs. the Drop Pod. The differences matter.
Not a particularly good example. Drop pods are prohibitively overpriced and fulfil a different role. On the other hand, you never really need to debate differences in deployment for Tempestus Scions. Plasma drops will win every time.
You're talking to a guy who takes Drop Pods all the time, so you'd be barking up the wrong tree there. That's beside the point even, Pod and Rhinos clearly bring different advantages. Pods offer total protection and freedom of movement, while Rhinos offer up some synergistic abilities in the capacity to assault units, or provide moving LOS/path-blocking "walls". Yes, Scions can DS with plasma for free, that's one unit. Just one. Are we really in the business of making sweeping generalizations based on the 1%?
I actually like removing vehicle facings, amoung other things, to streamline 40k's design and make the game actually playable. But Peregrine's definitely right in the point that positioning, as with most other elements of building lists and playing the game, are very binary, and remove the need for actual decision making or counterplay. The game moves too quickly in the early rounds to encourage deliberate pacing. Units that aren't effective across the entire table on turn one just aren't really worth bringing to it, which gives very little purpose to taking time to feel out your opponent's strategy and counter appropriately. Instead, you already know their strategy, it's the same as yours: wipe out everything that can hurt you on turn one.
Said it before and I'll say it again but 8th edition stripped out a lot of factors in gameplay which end up making tactics and decision making a lot simpler and limits the number of options you have because a lot of options have become so similar to each other.
1. Positioning matters a lot less when it comes to shooting. The core things that matter now are being in range and being close enough to whatever buff auras you can get. Unless there is a solid wall or your using ITC rules then its very difficult to completely hide a unit behind LoS blockers and it really doesn't matter how much obstruction there is between your guys and the target. It tends to make long range units able to fire away at their ideal targets (lascannons for example) and it doesn't matter if there is a huge ruins in the way because they can see a part of the target so pew pew the lascannons go. Armor facings and closest model casualties made it matter where your guys stood and where they shot/got shot from.
2. Weapons are very similar to each other. At the end of the day you can use basically any weapon to do any job so if you have nothing but pulse rifles as Tau then you can just spam pulse fire at anything and bring it down eventually. Granted its not ideal against a T8 2+ armor landraider but for the most part shooting comes down to some function of damage vs target compared to points cost and you aim the ideal weapons at the ideal targets. In past editions that was generally true as well but it was a lot more unforgiving to fire bolters at a Talos and they where useless against AV11 and up (aka most vehicle's front armor). 8th is plagued with a lot of "this is the ideal weapon" issues with plasma being the big problem child which is only sub par against hordes of cheap cannon fodder infantry. Weapons that use to be blast have all but lost their purpose while single shot expensive weapons are still rarely worth their points. Even the old reliable vehicle killer (melta) is too inconsistent and far more likely than before to not actually hurt the target its shooting at.
3. (this feeds the issues of 1 and 2). Terrain and cover rules are a dumpster fire of bad and for the most part don't really impact the game in a meaningful enough way. Shooting through a bunch of terrain or other units has little to no impact on the durability of what your shooting at unless the target is parked fully inside and if they aren't infantry then they need to be 50% obscured (if its a multi model unit then I believe all of them have to have at least 50% obstruction). So if your unit has 7 guys in terrain and 3 guys behind the terrain (they didn't reach the ruins yet) then YOU DO NOT GET A ZOGGING COVER SAVE. Doesn't matter if that heavy bolter is shooting past 2 units of boyz, a ruins, a pile of rubble, through the open spaces of a trukk, and can only see the top quarter of the kanz but screw you grots you don't get any cover benefits. Basically it means see the target and be in range then you dakka dakka dakka all you want.
4. Cover save is a +1 to your save which can be negated by AP and dis-proportionally helps units with high armor while being relatively inconsequential to low armor units. Plasma is king partially because it cuts through saves.Lootas in ruins get vaporized by plasma regardless if they where in cover or not. An Tankbusta in cover is getting a 5+ save and it can still be reduced by any AP values so they are barely getting any durability. A tactical marine in cover is now rocking terminator armor which is a huge difference in durability than bring a tankbusta up from a T-Shirt to standard issue guardsman cardboard. Before it made a world of difference when you pointed a plasma gun at a model out in the open vs a model in cover (open = no save, cover was generally a 4+ or 5+) and shooting through other units was a 5+ cover save so those screen units did more than just soak up charges but helped protect against ranged attacks.
5. Terrain is a non factor in so many ways when it comes to movement, shooting, and close combat. Already mentioned the shooting side of things but now movement really doesn't care about terrain. As long as its not a solid barrier that you have to go around then you just make your movements as normal regardless if its open fields or the rocky rubble piles of a bombed out building. Reducing movement but getting that cover was a trade off so it required more battlefield awareness and decision making. For assaults terrain would reduce your charge range and if you lacked grenades then you would swing last (I1). Made having terrain between you and the enemy unit matter as it required getting in closer to more reliably make a charge. Dangerous terrain was also a factor but the compounded roll requirements for it to do anything often made it feel somewhat inconsequential for a lot of units (unless your using Stormboyz then on baby your gonna take some casualties).
6 and beyond. Deployment was overly simplified which doesn't really provide options to negate alpha strikes so now you can almost always count on your turn 1 shooting to have targets to shoot at. Shooting and close combat is quite deadly and hard to deny so it becomes a blood bath from turn 1 and generally results in tabling before the end of game. Compound all the issues from above and you get a game where in general its best to just bring the most points efficient combat units to alpha strike the opponent off the board asap and you defend against this by using cheap fodder units to be a screen. Transports are underwhelming for their points cost so you tend to see a lot of units on foot which leaves them exposed to getting shot to death. If its a specailist unit like say Tankbustas who don't have cheap disposable wounds to burn then they become high priority targets and cost ineffective to field unless they can safely turn 1 alpha strike something before dying to return fire. It tends to reduce practical options because you need to bring units that can be points effective at either dying or dealing damage (or both if your codex/index is lucky). Without the need for very specialized weapons then it tends to come down to the versatile options that can handle a wide range of targets and thus you see stuff like plasma which is generally good against most targets. Add to that deep striking being very predictable (no scatter, 9" away, pick when it arrives, etc) so use of deepstrike becomes very low risk and not have uncertainty of when they arrive means you aren't taking a risk of it being delayed and thus not contributing to the fight when its needed.
There is more to this but that is some of the major issues I see with 8th and ultimately it makes the game feel boring. Its not that the game is completely missing all the decisonmaking and complexity of 7th but that everything has been simplified to the point of being rather similar as the path of least resistance/optimiaztion tends to bring you to the same result each time. Not enough factors with the battlefield itself to throw a wrench in your plans and de-optimize an army's execution.
At the end of the day you can use basically any weapon to do any job
I feel exactly the opposite is the case in fact. A unit of Death Company with chainswords will wipe any light infantry unit off the board, but they will struggle with T5 2+ save units, or deal only few wounds to a Leman Russ. Aggressors will delete screens but only deal few wounds to a rhino, and a lascannon is obviously horrible against light infantry. Battle Cannons are finally the jack of all trades they ought to be, putting out medium damage against a wide array of targets.
The fact that every weapon can wound anything is a huge trap, you can shoot a whole Brigade of fully buffed firewarriors at a land raider and don't even notch off a bracket. Aiming the right gun at the right target is hugely important, much more than last edition where every marine squad could melee down tanks in a single round of close combat.
Peregrine wrote: You know, it's funny, I rarely see anyone posting things like "all {poster} does is talk about how they like 40k, why do they have to do it so much". But when the subject is criticism of GW or 40k there's inevitably a crowd lining up to complain about "why do you have to post that so much". It's a double standard that is simultaneously amusing and irritating, and I think it says a lot about certain GW-apologist elements of the community.
It's not a double standard at all Peregrine. We don't NEED to ask why someone who lvoes 40k, and enjoys it etc is on a forum devoted to talking about it. The answer is self evidant. meanwhile someone who hates 40k.... why do they spend so much time on a 40k forum?
So, in a relic hunt game, i lost all of my forward forces. My opponent was also spent. So I looked at what remained and decided to get half a tactical squad on board a wounded razorback taken from my gunline and went for the objective, trying to zig-zag into the terrain to avoid getting seen and shot by a lonely leman russ.
Is this optimal, disregards positionings and ultimately dumb, or is it actually strategy/tactics? Just asking because sometimes it seems I play a differenti game altogether.
Must be the noob in me.
CapRichard wrote: So, in a relic hunt game, i lost all of my forward forces. My opponent was also spent. So I looked at what remained and decided to get half a tactical squad on board a wounded razorback taken from my gunline and went for the objective, trying to zig-zag into the terrain to avoid getting seen and shot by a lonely leman russ.
Is this optimal, disregards positionings and ultimately dumb, or is it actually strategy/tactics? Just asking because sometimes it seems I play a differenti game altogether.
Must be the noob in me.
It's those non-existing movement and terrain late game tactics.
Peregrine is right, 40K is very simple, and movement doesn't matter, although I'd say it's because of the ranges and amount of models you're using on a 6'x4' table. And that's ok.
Sometimes it's just fun to play a CCG.
I think people confuse target priority and positioning. Target priority, granted, is pretty straight-forward in 8th. Lascannons and melta go against vehicles. Massed AP 0 fire against light infantry. Plasma against heavy infantry. Smites against tough, high invuln units. And of course, you want those parts of your army to be in optimal range against their preferred targets.
But, considering that I don't play on a flat plain, I actually have to take into account - can I see my optimal targets through terrain? Did the opponent counter-deploy in order to deny me optimal strikes? If so, how do I position them and what's my best path through terrain to get to my optimal target? If I DS in my alpha strike squad, do I have options to retreat afterwards if the dice don't roll my way? Is my backfield support completely exposed? If the opponent DS' a CC squad into my DZ, how many turns of movement do I have before he's in? Is my screen positioned to prevent the CC squad from tying up my artillery this turn? How will that change next turn after his movement phase?
Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)
quentra wrote: Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)
When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.
quentra wrote: Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)
When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.
What? Why would you even need other movement other than 'How do I get in optimal range of my target'? That is the whole point of movement, because moving into optimal range will expose you to return fire from your opponent (if they're smart.)
Theoretically, what sort of movement would you want to see that isn't 'How do I get range/LOS to my target?'
CapRichard wrote: So, in a relic hunt game, i lost all of my forward forces. My opponent was also spent. So I looked at what remained and decided to get half a tactical squad on board a wounded razorback taken from my gunline and went for the objective, trying to zig-zag into the terrain to avoid getting seen and shot by a lonely leman russ.
Is this optimal, disregards positionings and ultimately dumb, or is it actually strategy/tactics? Just asking because sometimes it seems I play a differenti game altogether.
Must be the noob in me.
It's those non-existing movement and terrain late game tactics.
Not to be a Richard, but this sounds more like basic game play to me.
My forward stuff is dead, I need to get to an objective. A vehicle is faster than infantry, and stuffing some chaff that isn't doing much otherwise anyway in the vehicle means they'd have to kill 2 units. I need my guys to survive so I'll send them on a path that is out of los of/gets cover from the biggest threat to their continued existence but also leads to the objective.
I mean it was clearly a good decision (and sounds like a fun game moment), but it sounds like a reasonably straightforward scenario. What other options than "move to target while avoiding being shot" were there at this point? I don't think it covers the play/counterplay and outflanking etc. stuff the others seem to be looking for*.
*Unless you planned this in advance by baiting the russ out of position in earlier turns, that would be interesting.
quentra wrote: Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)
When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.
What? Why would you even need other movement other than 'How do I get in optimal range of my target'? That is the whole point of movement, because moving into optimal range will expose you to return fire from your opponent (if they're smart.)
Theoretically, what sort of movement would you want to see that isn't 'How do I get range/LOS to my target?'
I'm fine with it being at that level, but the kind of movement peregrine is talking about, to position for an outcome three turns away, to predict and counter your opponent's movement, that would add depth. I can't remember who said it a few pages back, but they were right. Movement in 40k is just about target priority, and the optimal way of getting there is almost always clear, and almost always regardless of what your opponent does, that movement is not going to change. There is no interplay with movement, no real proactive action, no reaction to make.
quentra wrote: Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)
When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.
What? Why would you even need other movement other than 'How do I get in optimal range of my target'? That is the whole point of movement, because moving into optimal range will expose you to return fire from your opponent (if they're smart.)
Theoretically, what sort of movement would you want to see that isn't 'How do I get range/LOS to my target?'
I'm fine with it being at that level, but the kind of movement peregrine is talking about, to position for an outcome three turns away, to predict and counter your opponent's movement, that would add depth. I can't remember who said it a few pages back, but they were right. Movement in 40k is just about target priority, and the optimal way of getting there is almost always clear, and almost always regardless of what your opponent does, that movement is not going to change. There is no interplay with movement, no real proactive action, no reaction to make.
Counter-positioning? Almost every game I've played, moving my dudes into optimal range of their preferred targets brought them into optimal range of the enemy's guns...who just so happen to be optimal against my dudes.
So that would seem to be counter-play. To be honest, I have trouble even imaging movement more complex than that, but I would love to hear more of this ideal movement that is deeper than 'Get your dudes into position while trying to avoid being in position for your enemy's guns.'
quentra wrote: Counter-positioning? Almost every game I've played, moving my dudes into optimal range of their preferred targets brought them into optimal range of the enemy's guns...who just so happen to be optimal against my dudes. So that would seem to be counter-play.
That's... that's not what cunter positionisng is. Counter positioning is setting up ahead of time to counter something your opponent does. In 40k, given the range sof most weapons, this basically doesn't take place. Plonk your unit down wherever, it can almost certainly hit what it's meant to with ease.
quentra wrote: To be honest, I have trouble even imaging movement more complex than that, but I would love to hear more of this ideal movement that is deeper than 'Get your dudes into position while trying to avoid being in position for your enemy's guns.'
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Don't try and get into a discussion about game mechanics if that's the limit of your idea of movement.
quentra wrote: Counter-positioning? Almost every game I've played, moving my dudes into optimal range of their preferred targets brought them into optimal range of the enemy's guns...who just so happen to be optimal against my dudes. So that would seem to be counter-play.
That's... that's not what cunter positionisng is. Counter positioning is setting up ahead of time to counter something your opponent does. In 40k, given the range sof most weapons, this basically doesn't take place. Plonk your unit down wherever, it can almost certainly hit what it's meant to with ease.
quentra wrote: To be honest, I have trouble even imaging movement more complex than that, but I would love to hear more of this ideal movement that is deeper than 'Get your dudes into position while trying to avoid being in position for your enemy's guns.'
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Don't try and get into a discussion about game mechanics if that's the limit of your idea of movement.
Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on?
Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.
quentra wrote: Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on? Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.
Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar. See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or how about outflanking on land? One of the simplest manoeuvres in all warfare is basically non-existent is 8th 40k.
quentra wrote: Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on?
Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.
Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar.
See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.
Yeah...that's in real life. You realize that wargames are an abstraction, and 40k is a magic space game with space wizards and elves and gak? How is that at all applicable to the actual game of abstract combat of space wizards?
Also 'Putting my ships in a line' works because in real life, you have seperate ships. In a wargame, that blob would probably be abstracted to a unit or two, depending on the scale of wargame. (Actually, wouldn't that work in BFG? I've only played the video game version.)
Yeah...that's in real life. You realize that wargames are an abstraction, and 40k is a magic space game with space wizards and elves and gak? How is that at all applicable to the actual game of abstract combat of space wizards?
You realise wargames, whilst they are an abstraction, are attempting to imitate real life and combat. That's why options like this are available in all wargames. It's applicable because positioning is important in plenty of games with space wizards, but not this one. 40K is not a wargame. It's more like a board game or CCG where you paint minis.
Also 'Putting my ships in a line' works because in real life, you have seperate ships. In a wargame, that blob would probably be abstracted to a unit or two, depending on the scale of wargame. (Actually, wouldn't that work in BFG? I've only played the video game version.)
No... if you're replicating naval combat, you use individual ships. And I have no doubt BFG does not operate on the same lines as early 19th century naval combat, but it does have actual positioning, as it's a proper wargame, at least compared to 40k, which has no real options beyond 'do I hide behind LOS blocking cover' or 'do I move into range of the thing I want to shoot'. There's nothing stopping 40K from having actual depth in movement and positioning just because there are space wizards.
That's not to say it's wrong, or you can't enjoy it, I'm just asking that you don't pretend 40k is something it's not.
It seems that some people may not have played against close combat armies?
Some great examples of positioning and counter play are:
1) Positioning your screen so that it can fall back and not be locked in combat through enemies surrounding it.
2) Positioning a unit to slow down the enemy chargers - for example your enemy has a movement of 10" and you know they are likely to make a successful charge against your army if they move the full distance. Position a unit so that they can only move 8". I've used this make the opponent fail a charge to my valuable units.
3) Positioning a unit to counter charge.
4) Using LoS blocking terrain to avoid overwatch.
5) Using a charge move to cover more ground for denying deep strikers rather than moving in for the kill.
The list goes on and I can link people to great articles about close combat and positioning if they want.
However if all you play is shooting vs shooting, then yeah, positioning isn't going to be as impactful.
JakeSiren wrote: It seems that some people may not have played against close combat armies?
Some great examples of positioning and counter play are:
1) Positioning your screen so that it can fall back and not be locked in combat through enemies surrounding it.
2) Positioning a unit to slow down the enemy chargers - for example your enemy has a movement of 10" and you know they are likely to make a successful charge against your army if they move the full distance. Position a unit so that they can only move 8". I've used this make the opponent fail a charge to my valuable units.
3) Positioning a unit to counter charge.
4) Using LoS blocking terrain to avoid overwatch.
5) Using a charge move to cover more ground for denying deep strikers rather than moving in for the kill.
The list goes on and I can link people to great articles about close combat and positioning if they want.
However if all you play is shooting vs shooting, then yeah, positioning isn't going to be as impactful.
As you say, shooting vs shooting (most fo40k) it doesn't matter.
As for your list, it boils down to, 'use screens when defending' and 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible'.
I think, though, the basic issue, even for CC as well as shooting, is scale. 28mm company and larger on 6x4 means you can basically reach everyhwere quickly, which makes positioning largely irrelevant.
JakeSiren wrote: It seems that some people may not have played against close combat armies?
Some great examples of positioning and counter play are:
1) Positioning your screen so that it can fall back and not be locked in combat through enemies surrounding it.
2) Positioning a unit to slow down the enemy chargers - for example your enemy has a movement of 10" and you know they are likely to make a successful charge against your army if they move the full distance. Position a unit so that they can only move 8". I've used this make the opponent fail a charge to my valuable units.
3) Positioning a unit to counter charge.
4) Using LoS blocking terrain to avoid overwatch.
5) Using a charge move to cover more ground for denying deep strikers rather than moving in for the kill.
The list goes on and I can link people to great articles about close combat and positioning if they want.
However if all you play is shooting vs shooting, then yeah, positioning isn't going to be as impactful.
As you say, shooting vs shooting (most fo40k) it doesn't matter.
As for your list, it boils down to, 'use screens when defending' and 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible'.
I think, though, the basic issue, even for CC as well as shooting, is scale. 28mm company and larger on 6x4 means you can basically reach everyhwere quickly, which makes positioning largely irrelevant.
Sure, but if you want to ignore nuance then your example of Nelson boils down to 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible' with the French and Spanish 'use screens when defending'. There are other manoeuvres that you can engage in 40k. For example this is a great example.
*Unless you planned this in advance by baiting the russ out of position in earlier turns, that would be interesting.
That was basically it actually. We both eneded up using 2 gunline armies with some mobile elements (I had some Ravenwing elements, he a Valkirie), that were shot down pretty early while doing some damage (I made a suicide beeline for his artillery managing to silence it) and then a giant freaking LOS blocking terrain in the middle forced us to move around it to make our gunline shooot each other. We could have gone right or left, I had first turn I decided to move right to force him to move right (Some stuff was in view, I shifted my weight, I baited and he went for it basically), having a left flank open to do later a smash and grab if possibile, that actually happened, even if not like I would have wanted, since you know, casualties happened.
I know it's not super high advanced tactics, it's just common sense, really, but actually having it makes the difference between players. The problems I think stems from listbuilding actually. The more OP and efficient a list is, the less brain you have to put into it. I faced a poxwalker spam list for example and saw an Eldar Shining Spears in action. Both lists were brain dead in their use: advance, point, shoot and charge. And there was little counter play possible, because the first would just occupy the whole board and shrug off everything I threw at it, the second was super fast, super durable, hard hitting, all in one package. By having listst that are on the more moderate spectrum, like actually using terminators, tacticals, admech infantry, you know, the model everyone forgets because they are not competitive, forces more effort to be put into the actual battle plan because your units "sucks" and need support, overlapping ranges and the likes. And this problem has been present since... the beginning of 40k I would say?
Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar.
See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or how about outflanking on land? One of the simplest manoeuvres in all warfare is basically non-existent is 8th 40k.
Using a ship example is not the best example to describe a movement tactics in a land based warfare game. Ships are slow moving, can't really react fact and have two very distinctive profiles (they are narrow and long). To employ such tactics in 40k hoenstly, one would have to first implement ships or vechicles with such characteristics and size. Most giant units in 40k are walkers that can turn on a dime and have a "squared shape". I believe that Battlefleet Gothic actually has rules to recreate something similar for istance, since it's based on naval warfare and not land battles.
Outflanking on land is atcually used in 8thk all the times. It's called deep striking. The ability to put forces right in the earth or the enemy by creating a second attack vector different from your main force it's there. When I use deepstriking I don't suicide bomb a unit for a first turn alpha strike and that's it, I put an entire army over there that my enemy has to respond to. And we happen to play on a table where if you are on one end of it, you can't always shoot the units on the other side, (Deployment permitting, if we get short table edge is a massacre usually) so if he diverts attention to the second front, the guns will be out of range on the other one. I have no idea how many times after I silenced the big guns I could simply stay out of range and retaliate with impunity.
I agree that that the removal of vehicle facing, the simplification of cover and the absolute precision of deep striking neuter the amount of options one has, as deepstriking behind a tank now it's the same as simply deploying in front of it. There is no denying that most of the focus has been moved from executing to list building compared to last edition (7th tau salutes everyone with they thiny hands as always) but I honestly also played Infinity and I don't want another game like that. XD
JakeSiren wrote: Sure, but if you want to ignore nuance then your example of Nelson boils down to 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible' with the French and Spanish 'use screens when defending'. There are other manoeuvres that you can engage in 40k. For example this is a great example.
Not at all. What Nelson is doing actually has thought behind it beyond those super simplistic points. Points 1,2 and 4 literally are those simple points, 3 is irrelevant due to my point about board size, and point 5 I just don't understand because I'm fairly sure it's a misunderstanding of game mechanics. I think you mean advance, but I'm not sure.
JakeSiren wrote: Sure, but if you want to ignore nuance then your example of Nelson boils down to 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible' with the French and Spanish 'use screens when defending'. There are other manoeuvres that you can engage in 40k. For example this is a great example.
Not at all. What Nelson is doing actually has thought behind it beyond those super simplistic points. Points 1,2 and 4 literally are those simple points, 3 is irrelevant due to my point about board size, and point 5 I just don't understand because I'm fairly sure it's a misunderstanding of game mechanics. I think you mean advance, but I'm not sure.
No, for point 5 I mean declaring a charge against an enemy unit, then having your unit spread out as a part of the charge move - even in the opposite direction to the enemy you charged!
Point 1 is knowing how your screening can be used against you and playing smartly against that.
Point 2 is knowing how to position your screen to be most effective in denying your enemy their "rightful" movement.
Point 3 is relevant. Not everything can move super fast - terminators for example have limited speed but can be kitted for a strong counter offensive.
These "simple" examples of positioning, as you put it, are the foundation blocks to more complex tactics. The article I linked to provides a more complex example of tactics arising from clever positioning.
I think in 8th one of the reason maneuver is less important than it might be is that tabling your opponent is pretty common, and a method of victory. Progressive missions help maneuver a bit because they force you to move and claim objective, unless tabling your opponent wins the game.
I do agree though that ranges are too long/the table too small. Ranges that cover most of the table are not uncommon, and the most common ranges of all reach between 1/4th and 1/2 the entire distance of the table. Adding in the movement stat helps things in some ways but 6"+ movement is far too common, almost nothing moves fewer than 4", and with advancing many things can move up to 12" in a turn. Throw in charges threat ranges for assault are extremely long, this forces gun ranges to be longer. If most weapons were say 12" range then assault becomes way more powerful because shooting an assault unit means if you don't kill it in a single turn you get assaulted. Which makes counter play through moving less common. If range differences and movement differences between factions were greater you would see more counter play. Further if shooting longer than say 30" was uncommon to non-existent (given the table size) you would see more movement/counter play.
Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k
In fairness they probably played one game.
A year ago with Index armies. With the express intention of disliking it
Been playing every week or so, and placing in the top two in pretty much every local tournament since 8th came out (I'd play in larger ponds, but unfortunately that's not as practical as I would like). I like a lot of core elements of 8th edition, but it has some serious problems.
I'm fine with it being at that level, but the kind of movement peregrine is talking about, to position for an outcome three turns away, to predict and counter your opponent's movement, that would add depth. I can't remember who said it a few pages back, but they were right. Movement in 40k is just about target priority, and the optimal way of getting there is almost always clear, and almost always regardless of what your opponent does, that movement is not going to change. There is no interplay with movement, no real proactive action, no reaction to make.
Honest question, have you ever watched a top table game of 8th?
Making some very obvious tactical reactions is not counterplay, not deep or proactive gameplay. There are very few occasions where you'll be making moves in 8th (and honestly, most earlier editions, but we're in 8th now) that require a good level of skill or intuition. It's all very spelled out. Since everything is so direct, while you might end up reacting to certain situations, you don't end up spending much time actually trying to outplay your opponent, as that level of interaction is mostly unimportant.
40k has a very low skill ceiling, essentially. And that's not a good thing.
Fafnir wrote: Making some very obvious tactical reactions is not counterplay, not deep or proactive gameplay. There are very few occasions where you'll be making moves in 8th (and honestly, most earlier editions, but we're in 8th now) that require a good level of skill or intuition. It's all very spelled out. Since everything is so direct, while you might end up reacting to certain situations, you don't end up spending much time actually trying to outplay your opponent, as that level of interaction is mostly unimportant.
40k has a very low skill ceiling, essentially. And that's not a good thing.
If that's the case then why do the same players consistently place well in events? If the skill ceiling is that low you'd think there'd be a lot more variance in the top tables based at some point on dice, luck, etc.
Farseer_V2 wrote: I find it tremendously entertaining that you don't think movement or positioning matters.
I find it tremendously entertaining that you think movement and positioning matter in a game where so many units can either deploy directly into close range shooting or a decent chance of a turn 1 charge or simply have enough raw speed to go wherever they want (including a turn-1 charge), and where terrain has been made almost irrelevant by ridiculous movement and LOS rules, and where flanking/hitting rear armor on vehicles/etc have all been removed from the game. GW has relentlessly diminished the importance of movement and positioning in favor of a CCG style "I cast 'charge with space marines' on your unit" system. Rarely do you have to plan a game of move vs. counter-move, you just declare which target you are attacking and roll dice to see if it works.
And no, the existence of screens don't make movement and positioning matter, just like the existence of blocking in MTG doesn't make it a game of movement and positioning.
Fair points all, none supported by actual game play but there's not an argument to be had. I don't 'argue' with people who have no interest in taking a look at things from outside their already established viewpoint.
To the OP's point, ultimately I disagree. I think 40k has strong synergies, and generally I think 8th is a solid edition. Are there things I'd like to improve? Certainly. And as they release more codexes I think things are improving and they're certainly learning their lessons from earlier books.
If you think 40k has strong synergies you need to try literally any other game.
People not experienced in other games seem to be confusing having a model that gives everything rerolls with a variety of synergies and interactions. If each army has a buff unit that all do the same thing that is shallow not synergy, that's not options and variety. It's like if MtG had one single combo for each color deck and you said, "see it has synergies."
Having more ways units interact and counter, and different ways multiple interactions combo, leads to more tactics needed to counter and more than a handful of builds. "You need anti infantry and anti tank guns" I said not synergy, at least as I was using the term.
Fafnir wrote: Making some very obvious tactical reactions is not counterplay, not deep or proactive gameplay. There are very few occasions where you'll be making moves in 8th (and honestly, most earlier editions, but we're in 8th now) that require a good level of skill or intuition. It's all very spelled out. Since everything is so direct, while you might end up reacting to certain situations, you don't end up spending much time actually trying to outplay your opponent, as that level of interaction is mostly unimportant.
40k has a very low skill ceiling, essentially. And that's not a good thing.
If that's the case then why do the same players consistently place well in events? If the skill ceiling is that low you'd think there'd be a lot more variance in the top tables based at some point on dice, luck, etc.
A lot of that comes down to rules/reading comprehension and the fact that a lot of people are just really bad at the game (not an indictment, a lot of people find joy in the hobby through things that aren't linked to winning games, miniature gaming is a diverse hobby). It doesn't help that 40k has a really large and really strange competitively-anti-competitive crowd that seems to consider unbalanced and unfair play options to be a virtue of game design.
Danny slag wrote:
If you think 40k has strong synergies you need to try literally any other game.
People not experienced in other games seem to be confusing having a model that gives everything rerolls with a variety of synergies and interactions. If each army has a buff unit that all do the same thing that should not synergy, that's not options and variety. It's like if MtG had one single combo for each color deck and you said, "see it has synergies."
Hell, you don't even need to go beyond GW. AoS does a much better job of this. Different command abilities can end up changing the entire playstyles of some armies.
If you think 40k has strong synergies you need to try literally any other game.
People not experienced in other games seem to be confusing having a model that gives everything rerolls with a variety of synergies and interactions. If each army has a buff unit that all do the same thing that should not synergy, that's not options and variety. It's like if MtG had one single combo for each color deck and you said, "see it has synergies."
Ahh so we've decided to attack a perceived lack of experience! I actively play Dropzone Commander (and Dropfleet), Malifaux, 40k, AoS, and Frost Grave. I have played in the past WHFB, Warmahordes, Bolt Action, Kings of War, plus a huge myraid of specialist games like Blood Bowl, BFG, Epic, LoTR, and WoTR. Different games do different things. I personally think WoTR is the best game GW ever produced and if it was still active I'd play the hell out of it. However it isn't. People seem to confuse their opinions on 40k (no depth, no skill, all alpha strike, CCG, etc) with facts. 40k is a fine game with plenty of options, plenty of chances for me to interact with it and meaningfully improve my chances of winning. It has interesting interactions both at the list building and game play stages. I could point all those out but we've seen already that those points will be dismissed as 'well yeah but that really just boils down to x" so I see no point in attempting to defend a position that other people have effectively taken a stance on that they're uninterested in changing.
Fortunately 8th edition has been a raging success so far with a rapidly growing tournament community so it looks like I'll be able to keep playing my simpleton's game for quite awhile.
8th is an edition about spacing. Good lord does space matter.
How many lascannons did I just deploy my tank in range of?
How many units are cluttered together that those berserkers are about to pacman through?
Is that Devastator squad in or out of my commander's 6" bubble while he's wandering off to counter-assault some poor sods?
Did I properly wrap my lines? Did my opponent differ his deep strike in hopes that I will scatter more on turn 2? Did I fall for that, again?
Why is my commander standing 2mm in front of the line of guys he is buffing? Ah crap, his screen was murdered and now he's dead.
How many of those bikes can I shoot off of that objective? How many can I shoot off before I shoot myself out of assaulting them and thus lose the objective?
MTG, and practically every other CCG, has always been about net decking. Once people realized they could have other people look at their ideas and critique them, and use that experience and perspective to evolve their decks... they began using it. "Competitive" events for those games usually boiled down to the "deck to beat" and the "deck that beats the deck to beat", and usually a few modifications to personalize the deck or try to get 1% more efficiency out of it.
Comparing playing a turn at Warhammer to a turn in MTG is completely out of line. I mean, I guess you could... if the tabletop in MTG could fight you back in addition to your opponent. "Oh, I'm sorry, your summon creature spell was put down just 2 inches too far away for you to attack my creature. Maybe when you get to your upkeep phase next turn and you can adjust it."
To get the real CCG feeling, you'd have to do things like eliminate the dead-man's land, play on a flat 6'x4' surface, and be able to place all of your stuff in such a way that it is simultaneously in range of all of the prime targets you want.
I think this whole discussion is really starting to showcase why the top players are the top players. They consider a lot of these variables quickly, and internally, and usually you don't catch on until it is too late to reverse your course... or of course, you lose. Some people never catch on. Those are the ones who say that luck simply was not with them, or their opponent just lucked into a really good position/dice rolls/whatever.
What an asinine statement. No one is suggesting playing on a terrainless flat board to replicate the look of a ccg, do you have any concept of game mechanics at all? That's like saying if you use dice then you need a board with spaces to movement on like monopoly. The concept of synergy and comboing multiple layers of unit interactions can work in different formats. That mechanic is what I talked about, don't be obtuse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "But shooting armies need to shoot stuff and close combat armies need to get close, look how deep and tactical it is."
If you think that's tactical and deep gameplay I see why you don't understand the issue.
Fafnir wrote: A lot of that comes down to rules/reading comprehension and the fact that a lot of people are just really bad at the game (not an indictment, a lot of people find joy in the hobby through things that aren't linked to winning games, miniature gaming is a diverse hobby). It doesn't help that 40k has a really large and really strange competitively-anti-competitive crowd that seems to consider unbalanced and unfair play options to be a virtue of game design.
So then the skill ceiling is higher than initially stated? If the ceiling is low then more than a handful of people should be showing even given that the bottom grouping is bad. If the ceiling is low then you should see a fairly dramatic shift where the top 50-60% of a tournament is effectively equally skilled.
quentra wrote: Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on?
Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.
Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar.
See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or how about outflanking on land? One of the simplest manoeuvres in all warfare is basically non-existent is 8th 40k.
Yea do you realize how long it takes to turn a boat around?
Show where anything like this would happen on a field of battle the size of 40K. There isn't a grand strategy map where I can breakthrough the front lines and circle over to the artillery to silence them. The artillery is on the same god damn table.
quentra wrote: Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on?
Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.
Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar.
See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or how about outflanking on land? One of the simplest manoeuvres in all warfare is basically non-existent is 8th 40k.
Yea do you realize how long it takes to turn a boat around?
Show where anything like this would happen on a field of battle the size of 40K. There isn't a grand strategy map where I can breakthrough the front lines and circle over to the artillery to silence them. The artillery is on the same god damn table.
This isn't an argument worth having because any attempt you make to demonstrate elements of choice, skill, or interaction will be boiled to the most insultingly simple concept someone can find and then label it as such.
Fafnir wrote: A lot of that comes down to rules/reading comprehension and the fact that a lot of people are just really bad at the game (not an indictment, a lot of people find joy in the hobby through things that aren't linked to winning games, miniature gaming is a diverse hobby). It doesn't help that 40k has a really large and really strange competitively-anti-competitive crowd that seems to consider unbalanced and unfair play options to be a virtue of game design.
So then the skill ceiling is higher than initially stated? If the ceiling is low then more than a handful of people should be showing even given that the bottom grouping is bad. If the ceiling is low then you should see a fairly dramatic shift where the top 50-60% of a tournament is effectively equally skilled.
High floor, low ceiling. Even with the streamlining that 8th edition brought to the table, there's still a lot of janky and obfuscated rules to keep track of, and internalizing the rules can take a lot of work for some people. 40k lends itself well to to those strong in linear mathematical processing of information and encylopedic memory. But as someone with good faculties in both of those qualities, I wouldn't consider either a good measure of player skill, nor as a cornerstone of deep gameplay.
Fafnir wrote: A lot of that comes down to rules/reading comprehension and the fact that a lot of people are just really bad at the game (not an indictment, a lot of people find joy in the hobby through things that aren't linked to winning games, miniature gaming is a diverse hobby). It doesn't help that 40k has a really large and really strange competitively-anti-competitive crowd that seems to consider unbalanced and unfair play options to be a virtue of game design.
So then the skill ceiling is higher than initially stated? If the ceiling is low then more than a handful of people should be showing even given that the bottom grouping is bad. If the ceiling is low then you should see a fairly dramatic shift where the top 50-60% of a tournament is effectively equally skilled.
High floor, low ceiling. Even with the streamlining that 8th edition brought to the table, there's still a lot of janky and obfuscated rules to keep track of, and internalizing the rules can take a lot of work for some people. 40k lends itself well to to those strong in linear mathematical processing of information and encylopedic memory. But as someone with good faculties in both of those qualities, I wouldn't consider either a good measure of player skill, nor as a cornerstone of deep gameplay.
I'm genuinely curious what markets you consider to a measure of player skill. I would think system mastery and risk management have to factor into player skill.
The most important element of player skill in a (well developed) head-to-head environment is reading your opponent. Getting in their head, figuring out what their decision making process is, and then exploiting and conditioning that process in order to manipulate their decisions for optimal outcomes in your favour.
Fafnir wrote: The most important element of player skill in a (well developed) head-to-head environment is reading your opponent. Getting in their head, figuring out what their decision making process is, and then exploiting and conditioning that process in order to manipulate their decisions for optimal outcomes in your favour.
Interesting, don't know that I agree but at least a different view point. I feel like this discounts a variety of other factors that I would consider tremendously important when determining skill in a given environment.
Fafnir wrote: The most important element of player skill in a (well developed) head-to-head environment is reading your opponent. Getting in their head, figuring out what their decision making process is, and then exploiting and conditioning that process in order to manipulate their decisions for optimal outcomes in your favour.
Do you think you can't do this in 8th edition 40k?
I've beaten opponents before even deploying because they see my list and it worms into their brain that my list is invincible. I've affected opponent's choices in deployment just by deploying one superheavy tank first, then holding the other two back - usually their antitank overcommits to the one they can see and I can ensure the safety of the other two. In movement, I'll sometimes deliberately expose a unit, trying to bait the enemy into charging it with something powerful so that unit can be cut down after a fall-back move / my unit's annihilation. Other times, I'll steamroll the baneblades forwards and talk up their CC prowess until my opponent is sweating bullets about them getting into CC - even though the Crush Them! stratagem can only be used on one tank in one phase. In shooting, I tend to focus the AT unit my opponent has put most of his hope in, which is not always the same thing as the one that is the most effective, because some opponents overreact to losses and start acting silly (e.g. pulling devastators with lascannons out of LOS of a Baneblade that just nailed a Predator).
There are lots of times I manipulate my opponents into making bad decisions by leveraging the psychological shock that my army can cause. If that's not "getting into their head" I don't know what is.
What an asinine statement. No one is suggesting playing on a terrainless flat board to replicate the look of a ccg, do you have any concept of game mechanics at all? That's like saying if you use dice then you need a board with spaces to movement on like monopoly. The concept of synergy and comboing multiple layers of unit interactions can work in different formats. That mechanic is what I talked about, don't be obtuse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "But shooting armies need to shoot stuff and close combat armies need to get close, look how deep and tactical it is."
If you think that's tactical and deep gameplay I see why you don't understand the issue.
It truly sounds like the complaint is: 40k 8th edition is a bland, depthless sham that isn't as good as X or Y game because it doesn't have immediately apparent c-c-c-combos and c-c-c-combo breakers.
I am being quite obtuse, because the premise being suggested is obtuse. Welcome to the wonderful world of internet hyperbole. If I type in more centrist words meant to truly express that I am not just the other extremist countering your opinion... well, then everything is just discarded because other people do, and they get their points counted or discounted.
Just because the game doesn't present stuff in a glaringly obvious way all of the time stating that "hey, this unit works good... but it works better with that unit, too!" does not mean it is entirely devoid of the concept.
I personally find that many units and forces combine very well and present the same threats in new and creative ways when you just change a model or two. I hate spam, so I cannot speak to the crowd that just throws 7 hive tyrants at the problem, but that in itself is another sort of synergy that is present: saturation. I use a collection of high toughness models to devalue your lighter weapons and deny them optimal targets. My models are arranged together to bring that feel to my list.
I have a sororitas army that brings in some militarum support, I don't have very many staggering buffs... but I do have a Company Commander driving his units up the field and shouting orders at them to make them better. Sounds like units working together. I have a Canoness advancing with her two or three squads of sisters, providing them support and sanctuary with her aura and wargear. All of those sisters are moving up behind my line of Dominions, Immolators, and Hellhounds, lobbing a few extra shells past that front line and into units that may still be lurking around. A few Seraphim bouncing around amidst that chaos to cherry pick hard targets with their inferno pistols. Celestine jumping in to draw attention and make my opponent feel bound to his deployment zone. Then she gets unceremoniously slaughtered and pops up in more of a support/counter-charge position with my second wave. Way in the back there are Retributors shelling opponents from the back, sometimes with a Tank Commander, but usually with another Canoness and an Imagifier, for support, you know.
The whole army works together, with each piece being tasked with a smaller part of the overall victory. I do not expect to be carried to victory buy a few overtuned units. Instead I look forward to a combined arms victory, and more often than not... the results are favorable.
Am I granted perks for choosing these specific units to work with each other? Sort of, kind of, but I mean no more than is being claimed that is out there. I didn't find some magical combo. Does my army synergize together and work well with each other to create a more enriching experience outside of: well, gosh, I guess I just play 30 Reapers or 7 Tyrants or as many squads of Dominions and Celestine that I can.
If you want the c-c-c-combo level of synergy, then refer to my very first statement and check out 7th edition. The combos were there, the synergy that you're looking for is there, and it was a serious issue for a lot of people. So much so that we've already moved past it to 8th edition, which should say something.
Fafnir wrote: The most important element of player skill in a (well developed) head-to-head environment is reading your opponent. Getting in their head, figuring out what their decision making process is, and then exploiting and conditioning that process in order to manipulate their decisions for optimal outcomes in your favour.
Interesting, don't know that I agree but at least a different view point. I feel like this discounts a variety of other factors that I would consider tremendously important when determining skill in a given environment.
The thing about rules knowledge and math-hammer optimization is that they're technical skills that don't really do a whole lot to involve the consideration of the opponent. They're secondary skills that can go to enhance the toolkit available in that primary skill of reading your opponent and playing with them, but they are not a meaningful tool on their own. They're mechanical processes that facilitate player interactions, but not player interactions in themselves.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fafnir wrote: The most important element of player skill in a (well developed) head-to-head environment is reading your opponent. Getting in their head, figuring out what their decision making process is, and then exploiting and conditioning that process in order to manipulate their decisions for optimal outcomes in your favour.
Do you think you can't do this in 8th edition 40k?
Not to a meaningful extent.
I've beaten opponents before even deploying because they see my list and it worms into their brain that my list is invincible.
That's just listbuilding. Which is fun in itself and has its place, but in a well-designed system (not saying that 40k is, because it's not), competent lists should not be open to that mindset.
I've affected opponent's choices in deployment just by deploying one superheavy tank first, then holding the other two back - usually their antitank overcommits to the one they can see and I can ensure the safety of the other two. In movement, I'll sometimes deliberately expose a unit, trying to bait the enemy into charging it with something powerful so that unit can be cut down after a fall-back move / my unit's annihilation.
And gambits like that certainly can work, but 40k often leaves such maneuvres pointless in the face of brute force.
Other times, I'll steamroll the baneblades forwards and talk up their CC prowess until my opponent is sweating bullets about them getting into CC - even though the Crush Them! stratagem can only be used on one tank in one phase. In shooting, I tend to focus the AT unit my opponent has put most of his hope in, which is not always the same thing as the one that is the most effective, because some opponents overreact to losses and start acting silly (e.g. pulling devastators with lascannons out of LOS of a Baneblade that just nailed a Predator).
Disingenuous. Always assume your opponent is smarter than you, has a better grasp of the rules than you, and will react better than you expect.
There are lots of times I manipulate my opponents into making bad decisions by leveraging the psychological shock that my army can cause. If that's not "getting into their head" I don't know what is.
It's about you and your opponent having tools to counter one another, tools to counter those counters (and even further counters, this cycle can be unending), and then working to anticipate one anothers' counters and act appropriately. 40k doesn't have a lot of that, as it tends to revolve more around linear damage output than utility and win conditions.
The perfect example of an internet forum.
A topic saying "40k has no combo's" and another saying "40k is just about assembling your combo" on the same page.
Ordana wrote: The perfect example of an internet forum.
A topic saying "40k has no combo's" and another saying "40k is just about assembling your combo" on the same page.
It is because the whole 'discussion' relies on something that is completely subjective. What I consider synergy may not be what other people consider synergy. It is more of an opinion piece, and there are lots of opposing opinions out there :(
Now, enough reasonability... back to being asinine and obtuse. Or as my wife has now termed it: an acute donkey-cave.
Edit: I LOVE the auto-correct to donkey-cave, dakka, that is pretty funny. Thank you!
Farseer_V2 wrote: Honest question, have you ever watched a top table game of 8th?
Yes, and I've played a fair amount too. The only time I've ever found movement has ever really been a choice was on a board pretty much choked with buildings. And one game using the open play cards. 12" range as tau really did make positioning important. Normally with 30" range on the basic gun and the ability to deepstrike into range any short ranged guns? Yeah no positioning is basically irrelevant.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Honest question, have you ever watched a top table game of 8th?
Yes, and I've played a fair amount too. The only time I've ever found movement has ever really been a choice was on a board pretty much choked with buildings. And one game using the open play cards. 12" range as tau really did make positioning important. Normally with 30" range on the basic gun and the ability to deepstrike into range any short ranged guns? Yeah no positioning is basically irrelevant.
What format do you play? Because objectives are where it counts.
The game is usually over long before turn 6 due to tabling, so objectives don't really matter,which is a whole other topic. Maybe if we played more maelstrom, but that doesn't add much positional depth, just running between objectives and selecting specific targets to shoot.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: The game is usually over long before turn 6 due to tabling, so objectives don't really matter,which is a whole other topic. Maybe if we played more maelstrom, but that doesn't add much positional depth, just running between objectives and selecting specific targets to shoot.
Oh my god.
You need to go play in-round scoring like with ITC. Please. It's super simple to learn.
Your whole perspective of the game is a world away from ours.
I can only play at the local GW, since there isn't a gaming club anywhere near me. If you're all playing in game scoring then yes, we may as well be completely different games. I'll give it a go alone if I can find the time.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I can only play at the local GW, since there isn't a gaming club anywhere near me. If you're all playing in game scoring then yes, we may as well be completely different games. I'll give it a go alone if I can find the time.
I promise it would be worth your time. I bet there's someone with an open mind at the GW store.
Daedalus81 wrote: I promise it would be worth your time. I bet there's someone with an open mind at the GW store.
Given it's about to become exam season I can't but I'll try on the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Show where anything like this would happen on a field of battle the size of 40K. There isn't a grand strategy map where I can breakthrough the front lines and circle over to the artillery to silence them. The artillery is on the same god damn table.
As for this, yes, that's my point. 40k's scale is all wrong for positioning to matter.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: The game is usually over long before turn 6 due to tabling, so objectives don't really matter,which is a whole other topic. Maybe if we played more maelstrom, but that doesn't add much positional depth, just running between objectives and selecting specific targets to shoot.
Yeah I mean if you aren't playing in game scoring (like they've introduced in Chapter Approved) then I'm sure you have a different perspective to say me who plays almost nothing but in turn scoring (i.e. what most major tournaments in the US are playing).
Yeah. Play the Chapter Approved missions. Honestly people say "CA didn't add much for matched play" but those missions are heads and shoulders above the BRB ones.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah. Play the Chapter Approved missions. Honestly people say "CA didn't add much for matched play" but those missions are heads and shoulders above the BRB ones.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah. Play the Chapter Approved missions. Honestly people say "CA didn't add much for matched play" but those missions are heads and shoulders above the BRB ones.
Tactical gambit is my favorite
go bold or go home
Eh. I skip the maelstrom ones. It's much more interesting play to know where the objectives are and how to position to claim or deny them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah. Play the Chapter Approved missions. Honestly people say "CA didn't add much for matched play" but those missions are heads and shoulders above the BRB ones.
Tactical gambit is my favorite
go bold or go home
Eh. I skip the maelstrom ones. It's much more interesting play to know where the objectives are and how to position to claim or deny them.
True though at times it just makes people castle especially if they get a money deployment.
i do like the objective with random value though that one can be funny.
We could have gone right or left, I had first turn I decided to move right to force him to move right (Some stuff was in view, I shifted my weight, I baited and he went for it basically), having a left flank open to do later a smash and grab if possibile, that actually happened, even if not like I would have wanted, since you know, casualties happened.
Thank you for elaborating. When I first found this site it was stuff like this I was hoping to learn from the tactics section!
I feel that movement isn't as important as I'd like it to be, due to both the size of armies and the board limiting maneuvering options and to a lot of units being mobile enough to go wherever they need to be in one or two turns (or having the (charge) range to affect their desired target). I'd translated this to "movement hardly matters at all" mentally, which I now see was a mistake. Looks like I've got something to try out on the tabletop!
* and I agree that moving your force's weight around only influences where your guys die if you face a much harder list.
Ordana wrote: The perfect example of an internet forum.
A topic saying "40k has no combo's" and another saying "40k is just about assembling your combo" on the same page.
It is because the whole 'discussion' relies on something that is completely subjective. What I consider synergy may not be what other people consider synergy. It is more of an opinion piece, and there are lots of opposing opinions out there :(
Now, enough reasonability... back to being asinine and obtuse. Or as my wife has now termed it: an acute donkey-cave.
Edit: I LOVE the auto-correct to donkey-cave, dakka, that is pretty funny. Thank you!
Because what a lot of dakka considers "synergy" is spamming 27 of one unit and winning. Units that are in an army that wins doesn't necessarily equal synergy. It's a really strange way to use the word.
What I and anyone who isn't being a tard mean by synergy is when units have various interactions with one another.
Ordana wrote: The perfect example of an internet forum.
A topic saying "40k has no combo's" and another saying "40k is just about assembling your combo" on the same page.
It is because the whole 'discussion' relies on something that is completely subjective. What I consider synergy may not be what other people consider synergy. It is more of an opinion piece, and there are lots of opposing opinions out there :(
Now, enough reasonability... back to being asinine and obtuse. Or as my wife has now termed it: an acute donkey-cave.
Edit: I LOVE the auto-correct to donkey-cave, dakka, that is pretty funny. Thank you!
Because what a lot of dakka considers "synergy" is spamming 27 of one unit and winning. Units that are in an army that wins doesn't necessarily equal synergy. It's a really strange way to use the word.
What I and anyone who isn't being a tard mean by synergy is when units have various interactions with one another.
Competitive 40k in a nutshell - spam the crap out of the most cost effective units and proclaim it as a synergistic masterpiece.
There is a lot of synergy in 8th... but it's almost entirely all being used in the same boring way. Find something that gives re-rolls to hit/wound, and surround it with big scary shooting. It's bland and it's boring.
Death guard has some decent synergy with spells and stratagems, but they can be really hard to line up properly and avoided, so competitive lists become "spam that one pretty good and easy to use model"
Chaos daemons are probably the biggest exception to this discussion. Both with synergy and with min troops armies. For some reason, troops are point for point, insanely good for daemons (at least bloodletters, pinkies and nurglings). However as mentioned by another poster, ITC missions kinda slap some of the daemon strategies (units over 20) in the mouth.
what has made me most sad about army comps is that every list seems to just be an alternative on leaf blower from 5th ed. The "take a little of everything and be good at it" of space marines feels completely gone.
gwarsh41 wrote: There is a lot of synergy in 8th... but it's almost entirely all being used in the same boring way. Find something that gives re-rolls to hit/wound, and surround it with big scary shooting. It's bland and it's boring.
Death guard has some decent synergy with spells and stratagems, but they can be really hard to line up properly and avoided, so competitive lists become "spam that one pretty good and easy to use model"
Chaos daemons are probably the biggest exception to this discussion. Both with synergy and with min troops armies. For some reason, troops are point for point, insanely good for daemons (at least bloodletters, pinkies and nurglings). However as mentioned by another poster, ITC missions kinda slap some of the daemon strategies (units over 20) in the mouth.
what has made me most sad about army comps is that every list seems to just be an alternative on leaf blower from 5th ed. The "take a little of everything and be good at it" of space marines feels completely gone.
I'm sad you didn't mention Daemonettes, as I've decided to play mono-slaanesh, but eh. Another topic for another thread I guess.
what has made me most sad about army comps is that every list seems to just be an alternative on leaf blower from 5th ed. The "take a little of everything and be good at it" of space marines feels completely gone.
Until 40k drops I-go-you-go for a system built around alternating unit activation, this is always going to be the case. The current system is always going to encourage massive front-loading of firepower, as the best way to win games is removing your opponents' options, and the best way to do that is to blow them off the table before your opponent gets to even use them.
