Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 05:56:40


Post by: Crimson Devil


Simple question. I'm not really concerned how you play, but if you actually do.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 06:20:57


Post by: Racerguy180


I've been slacking the past couple of weeks and havent played(more due to vacation/busy w family). since 8th dropped I would say ive played almost a game a week(sometimes 2). So overall I've played 115ish games in the last 2 years.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 07:36:52


Post by: Grimtuff


Bit of a skewed question there. There are number of people who actively "play", as in, they are active in the hobby and community in some capacity but cannot get a game in for whatever reason. Up until yesterday I was one of those and played my first game since April. But I was still active in the community. I still considered myself to be "playing" 40k even though the actual games were few and far between.

There's a difference between not actively playing the game because you find it terrible (or a myriad of other reasons) and not playing simply due to other life commitments.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 08:39:46


Post by: Tyranid Horde


I've been playing two or three games every week for the past 3 weeks after not playing since March. I feel there should be more options as to how frequently someone plays because you'll get a better base to work from.

So far I'm top in the group stage of a local league and mid-table in another one. Catching up with the rules and learning other factions is next on my list so I can win more.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 08:43:16


Post by: wuestenfux


Well, I have played several games in the 8th but not yet went to a local tourney.
My free time is really short atm.
Frankly, I havent lost a game with my Eldar (incl. Harlie support). But my experience with Harlies was that Jetbikers are good but not the rest.
Then I decided to play my GK with quite good success. Lost one game vs. Mechanicus and won two vs. CSM.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 09:07:50


Post by: Stux


Also what would you put if you last played 4 years ago and have now sort of quit?

Surely if it's been that long you have effectively quit, whether by choice or not.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 09:09:17


Post by: Eldarsif


I am lucky that I have a very strong friend group playing all sorts of GW titles. Currently been knee deep in AoS of late(get a game every other week at least), but then I try to play 40k equally as much.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 09:12:05


Post by: Asherian Command


I've not played this new edition of 40k. I don't like the over simplification of certain units, and complication of others.

There is now an easy 'beginner' army. And I do not like it.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 09:54:48


Post by: ccs


Overall, since I retuned to Warhammer last Sept, my WH play time has ended up pretty evenly split between 40k & AoS.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 10:21:58


Post by: Reavsie


I have played in the last year although I have yet to play in this calendar year.

Would like to get regular games in but too much IRL in the way. God, I hate IRL.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 10:47:19


Post by: NoiseMarine with Tinnitus


I am finding myself rapidly moving away from 40K and on to the board games, Shadespire, BSF, AT, etc. Balancing rules is all fine and well but with little free time I want a more static rule set.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 10:54:51


Post by: stonehorse


8th killed my interest in 40k, I use the miniatures for From Dark Future now. Apocalypse has me interested, as it seems to have a lot of the rules I have wanted 40K to adopt since the early 00's.

Regular 40k has been going down hill since 5th edition, 8th doesn't seem to be changing that trend. I hope that Apocalypse is a test bee for new ideas that we see in 8th edition. I doubt it will happen, but live in hope that GW will make 40k a fun game.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:13:59


Post by: Mr Morden


Yep not as much as I would like though


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:15:50


Post by: Ishagu


 Asherian Command wrote:
I've not played this new edition of 40k. I don't like the over simplification of certain units, and complication of others.

There is now an easy 'beginner' army. And I do not like it.


How do you know you don't like it if you haven't payed it? Theory and Practice are different things.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:18:37


Post by: licclerich


Got sick and tired playing against people so I play solo now but 40k is not the game to do this. Played 3 games and will play my 4th next week.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:20:17


Post by: Stormatious


Played one game and it was great, but im paranoid as feth about my models, and i dont want to varnish them, so i dont know how to solve this issue. But once i get over this ill play every 2 weeks.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:20:39


Post by: Ishagu


 stonehorse wrote:
8th killed my interest in 40k, I use the miniatures for From Dark Future now. Apocalypse has me interested, as it seems to have a lot of the rules I have wanted 40K to adopt since the early 00's.

Regular 40k has been going down hill since 5th edition, 8th doesn't seem to be changing that trend. I hope that Apocalypse is a test bee for new ideas that we see in 8th edition. I doubt it will happen, but live in hope that GW will make 40k a fun game.


You are very wrong. Do you ever consider that your personal tastes are not shared by the vast majority of hobbyists? By what metric is it not a fun game? There are more players engaging than at any point in the past, having a great time. The brand is more successful than ever as a result.

There are some people who don't like Pizza. You're one of those people.
The vast majority love it.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:29:48


Post by: Eldarsif


Only thing I can say is that Warhammer 40k and AoS have never been more popular at my FLGS. Tourneys - especially the 40k ones - are filled and people are always playing on Warhammer game nights.

Whatever GW has been doing they have been doing the right thing because people are excited, having fun, and want to play. For both 40k and AoS there are a lot of people coming out of the woodwork who left a few editions(WHFB in case of AoS) ago.

Incidentally my nation really loves pizza.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:32:04


Post by: Slipspace


 Ishagu wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
8th killed my interest in 40k, I use the miniatures for From Dark Future now. Apocalypse has me interested, as it seems to have a lot of the rules I have wanted 40K to adopt since the early 00's.

Regular 40k has been going down hill since 5th edition, 8th doesn't seem to be changing that trend. I hope that Apocalypse is a test bee for new ideas that we see in 8th edition. I doubt it will happen, but live in hope that GW will make 40k a fun game.


You are very wrong. Do you ever consider that your personal tastes are not shared by the vast majority of hobbyists? By what metric is it not a fun game? There are more players engaging than at any point in the past, having a great time. The brand is more successful than ever as a result.

There are some people who don't like Pizza. You're one of those people.
The vast majority love it.


If you'd stop white-knighting for GW for a second, you might realise that it's pretty clear in this context stonehorse is talking from a personal point of view, which would be the safe assumption whenever anyone comments on a purely subjective thing like fun. You don't have to preface every single point on a discussion board with "in my opinion".


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:39:02


Post by: the_scotsman


 Stormatious wrote:
Played one game and it was great, but im paranoid as feth about my models, and i dont want to varnish them, so i dont know how to solve this issue. But once i get over this ill play every 2 weeks.


I know its a bit off topic, but do you not want to varnish your minis because you don't want them glossy?

Because they make matte varnishes.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 11:43:54


Post by: Ishagu


Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
8th killed my interest in 40k, I use the miniatures for From Dark Future now. Apocalypse has me interested, as it seems to have a lot of the rules I have wanted 40K to adopt since the early 00's.

Regular 40k has been going down hill since 5th edition, 8th doesn't seem to be changing that trend. I hope that Apocalypse is a test bee for new ideas that we see in 8th edition. I doubt it will happen, but live in hope that GW will make 40k a fun game.


You are very wrong. Do you ever consider that your personal tastes are not shared by the vast majority of hobbyists? By what metric is it not a fun game? There are more players engaging than at any point in the past, having a great time. The brand is more successful than ever as a result.

There are some people who don't like Pizza. You're one of those people.
The vast majority love it.


If you'd stop white-knighting for GW for a second, you might realise that it's pretty clear in this context stonehorse is talking from a personal point of view, which would be the safe assumption whenever anyone comments on a purely subjective thing like fun. You don't have to preface every single point on a discussion board with "in my opinion".


He hasn't given a single reason for his dislike. Just that it's somehow a downward trend since 5th, even though the game is vastly different now. He's being an unreasonable, vocal minority and if I see someone being hyperbolic I will call them out.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 12:25:14


Post by: stonehorse


 Ishagu wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
8th killed my interest in 40k, I use the miniatures for From Dark Future now. Apocalypse has me interested, as it seems to have a lot of the rules I have wanted 40K to adopt since the early 00's.

Regular 40k has been going down hill since 5th edition, 8th doesn't seem to be changing that trend. I hope that Apocalypse is a test bee for new ideas that we see in 8th edition. I doubt it will happen, but live in hope that GW will make 40k a fun game.


You are very wrong. Do you ever consider that your personal tastes are not shared by the vast majority of hobbyists? By what metric is it not a fun game? There are more players engaging than at any point in the past, having a great time. The brand is more successful than ever as a result.

There are some people who don't like Pizza. You're one of those people.
The vast majority love it.


If you'd stop white-knighting for GW for a second, you might realise that it's pretty clear in this context stonehorse is talking from a personal point of view, which would be the safe assumption whenever anyone comments on a purely subjective thing like fun. You don't have to preface every single point on a discussion board with "in my opinion".


He hasn't given a single reason for his dislike. Just that it's somehow a downward trend since 5th, even though the game is vastly different now. He's being an unreasonable, vocal minority and if I see someone being hyperbolic I will call them out.


Ok here we go...

1) the removal of fire arcs.
2) fliers turning on a hair pin, ever played Epic? That is how fliers should operate. Having fliers, especially super sonic jets turn like they can in a 28mm scale game is ludicrous.
3) malestrom missions make for an odd goals, seems like command is schizophrenic.
4) command points, while a great idea in principle, they have been badly handled.
5) true line of sight.
6) how in melee models seem to be unimportant, and fall into bases, many times I had Carnifexes literally touching a model with the claws, however as the model was on higher ground my base couldn't get within the needed distance... so no combat.
7) characters being immune to being targeted if a unit is closer and out of los.
8) random numbers for the sake of random... whether that be number of attacks, or damage.
9) detailed rules for individual pistols and colossal war machines... all resolved with a D6.
10) the inescapable feeling that 8th is a testbed for rules, it feels time and time again that 8th is a beta we have paid for. I have honestly lost count of the amount of rules changes made to the core rules since buying Dark Imperium.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 12:38:26


Post by: Ishagu


All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 12:49:12


Post by: Yarium


I played on Tuesday.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 12:52:13


Post by: Darsath


Last game of 40k I played was in March of 2018. I've not really been avoiding the game or anything like that, I just haven't had the urge to play it. I guess I'm not into the new rules, and even giving them a fair shot (and about 10 games), I just can't enjoy it. I keep in touch with what's going on in the hobby, and contact within the community, because I enjoy the engagement and being able to have a good perspective and idea of what people are talking about, and the new hotness.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 12:56:47


Post by: Slipspace


 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.


Really? All of them? Command points reduce book keeping? Maelstrom makes the game more tactical? The scale discrepancy is more tactical? You may not agree with all of their reasons but they seem reasonable enough for someone to subjectively decide 40k isn't fun. As to how often they play, I think their previous response seems pretty clear that they don't any more.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:02:47


Post by: stonehorse


 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


Tactical! Haha, good joke.

8th boils down to rolling buckets of dice, and using combos/stratagems to manipulate the dice to get the desired number.

Movement is near enough pointless, other than to get into range.

GW can make good games, with elegant rules. One that springs to mind is Betrayal at Calth. That game is hands down the best GW game that no one played.

40K is more popular now than it ever had been, bit that doesn't mean much. Popularity is no indicator of quality or value... McDonald's is one if not the most popular restaurant. Popularity indicates a successful marketing team and brand recognition.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:16:24


Post by: Ishagu


 stonehorse wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


Tactical! Haha, good joke.

8th boils down to rolling buckets of dice, and using combos/stratagems to manipulate the dice to get the desired number.

Movement is near enough pointless, other than to get into range.

GW can make good games, with elegant rules. One that springs to mind is Betrayal at Calth. That game is hands down the best GW game that no one played.

40K is more popular now than it ever had been, bit that doesn't mean much. Popularity is no indicator of quality or value... McDonald's is one if not the most popular restaurant. Popularity indicates a successful marketing team and brand recognition.


You said so much wrong. Movement wins the game - anyone actually experienced can tell you that.

You are clearly lacking experience at a high level of play, so you should stop making statements about things you don't fully understand. How many games have you played in the last month and at what level? One game in your living room is not the same indicator of a game a 6 games at a tournament where people use different armies, tactics and strategies to illustrate the breadth of the game.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:17:18


Post by: Nurglitch


That's the odd thing though. Is it really that great if nobody was interested in playing it? Likewise, is something really bad if it appeals to so many people?


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:19:21


Post by: Lance845


 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:20:48


Post by: Ishagu


 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.


What's the one tactic? I've won games in multiple different ways so clearly there isn't just one.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:28:43


Post by: Lance845


 Ishagu wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.


What's the one tactic? I've won games in multiple different ways so clearly there isn't just one.


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:31:48


Post by: NoiseMarine with Tinnitus


Static gunlines with plenty of CP and re-roll aura shenanigans spread liberally throughout would be my guess?


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:33:44


Post by: Eldarsif


40k doesn't have any tactics.


Depends entirely how you define tactics. If I were to presume your idea of tactic based on what you have written then no boardgame has any tactics, and that is all well and good. We all have our differing opinions and definitions.

Now, if you consider acting accordingly, reacting strategically, and such tactics, then yes, 40k has tactics.

There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else.


Strangely enough these are things I have done in Warhammer.

You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model.


I think this sincerely is the problem you are encountering. You are playing kill point missions and they are indeed very one dimensional and boring. One of the reasons I've stopped playing them.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:40:25


Post by: Ishagu


 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.


What's the one tactic? I've won games in multiple different ways so clearly there isn't just one.


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


Oh my sweet, summer child. I feel bad for your limited experience with the game. You'd had a very poor, one dimensional experience which doesn't reflect the full scope of the game. Fid yourelf a better group and play some missions on tables with good terrain and LoS blocking.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:40:43


Post by: Lance845


 Eldarsif wrote:
40k doesn't have any tactics.


Depends entirely how you define tactics. If I were to presume your idea of tactic based on what you have written then no boardgame has any tactics, and that is all well and good. We all have our differing opinions and definitions.

Now, if you consider acting accordingly, reacting strategically, and such tactics, then yes, 40k has tactics.

There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else.


Strangely enough these are things I have done in Warhammer.


Tactics doesn't have a nebulous user defined definition. Strategy and Tactics are 2 different things. Strategy is your pre battle plan. Tactics is what you do in the "heat of battle". For 40k to be tactical there needs to be a lot of uncertainty about your choices so that you and the opponent are playing each other instead of the math of the models. 40k is very mathmatical, sure. It's VERY based on probabilities and and efficiencies and so on. But because you act with your entire army all at once without them being able to make any meaningful response you have no choice to make but to kill as much as possible while sitting on whatever objectives you could reach. Or I guess you could not do that and loose, but I mean making suicidal choices are not really tactical when there is no benefit.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:42:41


Post by: Stormonu


Played last Sunday, primaris vs. Chaos. We only played half a game though, because we had to pack it up for our biweekly D&D game. Can’t rightly remember when the last game prior to that was, though I remember it was Chaos vs. Admech vs. Orks. Want to say it was about three months ago.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:44:13


Post by: Lance845


 Ishagu wrote:

Oh my sweet, summer child. I feel bad for your limited experience with the game. You'd had a very poor, one dimensional experience which doesn't reflect the full scope of the game. Fid yourelf a better group and play some missions on tables with good terrain and LoS blocking.


The dumbest gak in the world is thinking that because LoS blocking terrain exists for the all or nothing binary switch of "I can shoot you/I can't shoot you" that the game suddenly gains some measure of depth. 40k needs better terrain rules for it to matter. Apoc has better terrain rules simply because of obscured and garrisoning. 40k has nothing but your toggle switch. That doesn't add tactics.

Look, I am glad you have fun with your bad game. But that doesn't stop it from having no tactics. It's fine you enjoy it. Enjoy it. Really. No sarcasm. Have all the fun. But don't pretend it has features it doesn't just because you like it.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:44:24


Post by: Grimtuff


Guys, you're fighting against a garden variety GW white knight. You'll get nowhere.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:49:53


Post by: DarknessEternal


I've quit 40k. Kill Team is closer to the game 40k I started playing.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:52:13


Post by: Ishagu


 Grimtuff wrote:
Guys, you're fighting against a garden variety GW white knight. You'll get nowhere.


I don't hate the hobby I invest my time in. I value my time, and I certainly wouldn't waste it going online to complain about something. I guess I have a better and more fulfilled life than some on this forum.
If you don't like the hobby go and do something else. Problem solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:

Oh my sweet, summer child. I feel bad for your limited experience with the game. You'd had a very poor, one dimensional experience which doesn't reflect the full scope of the game. Fid yourelf a better group and play some missions on tables with good terrain and LoS blocking.


The dumbest gak in the world is thinking that because LoS blocking terrain exists for the all or nothing binary switch of "I can shoot you/I can't shoot you" that the game suddenly gains some measure of depth. 40k needs better terrain rules for it to matter. Apoc has better terrain rules simply because of obscured and garrisoning. 40k has nothing but your toggle switch. That doesn't add tactics.

Look, I am glad you have fun with your bad game. But that doesn't stop it from having no tactics. It's fine you enjoy it. Enjoy it. Really. No sarcasm. Have all the fun. But don't pretend it has features it doesn't just because you like it.


You're wrong, it's that plain and simple. A good player will beat a less experienced player with the same list. Why is that? Because he has better understanding of his army and makes more beneficial tactical choices in a game. You evidently don't actually play the game very much. Subscribe to warhammer TV and watch some tournament games.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 13:59:06


Post by: Eldarsif


Tactics doesn't have a nebulous user defined definition. Strategy and Tactics are 2 different things. Strategy is your pre battle plan. Tactics is what you do in the "heat of battle". For 40k to be tactical there needs to be a lot of uncertainty about your choices so that you and the opponent are playing each other instead of the math of the models. 40k is very mathmatical, sure. It's VERY based on probabilities and and efficiencies and so on. But because you act with your entire army all at once without them being able to make any meaningful response you have no choice to make but to kill as much as possible while sitting on whatever objectives you could reach. Or I guess you could not do that and loose, but I mean making suicidal choices are not really tactical when there is no benefit.


Again, by those definitions no boardgame has the capacity to be tactical because they are all mathematical at the core.

I mean making suicidal choices are not really tactical when there is no benefit.


But you sometimes sacrifice units into combat to tie up a unit to ensure you are able to pull other shenanigans. You also try to goad your opponent in committing firepower and forces in areas where you will eventually have something to gain elsewhere or gives you an opening to exploit.

I'll be honest that I have no idea of what your definition of tactic is or whether there exists game that can provide it and I do sincerely fear that this is a game of goalpost moving, which is a debate tactic I have as much interest in as I do for hernia.

Only thing I know is that I need to read my opponent, I have to goad him into doing mistakes, and I have to - as strangely as that might sound - outmaneuver him. At this point I just feel like we are playing completely different games and therefore speaking two different languages.

To be fair it does sound like you are playing against the AI since the outcomes are so pre-calculated. Actually, now that I think about it your problem might be that you only have a single opponent or two you are fighting against and therefore do not have the human opponent pool to be challenged. Did that mistake a lot in 6th and 7th. Played a lot of games against a single opponent(who played Ultramarines) so when I started fighting other people I had gotten into such a routine that I thought everybody would play like my good friend K(not an MIB agent). In fact, my approach became similar to yours, sitting on objectives and shooting stuff because I had gotten accustomed to K's tactics(I enjoyed the game, but admit that it had lost some of its dimension). However, as soon as I played other people who were not my good friend K things got drastically different. My friend started to do the same and has upped his game considerably and now our games are fun again.

Never underestimate the value of having a varied pool of players people. They provide you with so much difference and variety that keeps the game fresh. So cultivate that local pool of opponent, you'll be grateful later on.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:01:16


Post by: Lance845


A more experienced player beats a new player because s/he understands the math better. Or just because they went first. Because first turn advantage decides like 65% of all games.

Tactical depth!


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:04:26


Post by: Stux


 Lance845 wrote:
A more experienced player beats a new player because s/he understands the math better. Or just because they went first. Because first turn advantage decides like 65% of all games.

Tactical depth!


But in the big tournament scene you see same best players regularly making it to top tables. There's way more to it than you're implying here. Not to mentioning the probabilities can get very complicated, and managing that on the fly as things change is a skill in itself.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:07:48


Post by: Ishagu


Removed - BrookM



Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:09:17


Post by: Lance845


Math is a skill. I agree with that.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:12:16


Post by: Stux


 Lance845 wrote:
Math is a skill. I agree with that.


Especially under the pressure of a tournament setting.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:15:21


Post by: nurgle5


Slipspace wrote:
Maelstrom makes the game more tactical?


Can you expound on this please?


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:15:30


Post by: Lance845


 Stux wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Math is a skill. I agree with that.


Especially under the pressure of a tournament setting.


1) tournaments are not the game. The game is equally tactical in my garage.

2) math doesnt make it tactical. It makes it predictable. People who are better at the math will make more accurate predictions.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:16:24


Post by: Slipspace


 Eldarsif wrote:
Tactics doesn't have a nebulous user defined definition. Strategy and Tactics are 2 different things. Strategy is your pre battle plan. Tactics is what you do in the "heat of battle". For 40k to be tactical there needs to be a lot of uncertainty about your choices so that you and the opponent are playing each other instead of the math of the models. 40k is very mathmatical, sure. It's VERY based on probabilities and and efficiencies and so on. But because you act with your entire army all at once without them being able to make any meaningful response you have no choice to make but to kill as much as possible while sitting on whatever objectives you could reach. Or I guess you could not do that and loose, but I mean making suicidal choices are not really tactical when there is no benefit.


Again, by those definitions no boardgame has the capacity to be tactical because they are all mathematical at the core.


That's completely untrue. Many, many boardgames contain large amounts of hidden information which makes them more than just a mathematical exercise. There are elements of psychology or risk management in many "tactical" boardgames as a result of this. The problem in 40k is that all information is open information, so baiting or goading opponents depends almost entirely on them not being good enough to understand what's happening.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:18:19


Post by: Stux


 Lance845 wrote:
 Stux wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Math is a skill. I agree with that.


Especially under the pressure of a tournament setting.


1) tournaments are not the game. The game is equally tactical in my garage.

2) math doesnt make it tactical. It makes it predictable. People who are better at the math will make more accurate predictions.


You are grossly simplifying things here. It's not predictable because it changes, and what you do and how your opponent behaves will affect the maths later.

I sense you are under the impression that any given situation is in some way solvable. That is really not the case. If you think you are playing optimally all the time, you are likely really not and not factoring in a lot of things.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:18:34


Post by: Ishagu


40k is more than a mathematical exercise. I can win objectives and thus games without rolling dice.



Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:19:19


Post by: Slipspace


 nurgle5 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Maelstrom makes the game more tactical?


Can you expound on this please?


It's in response to another poster's comment that all of the bad things about 40k someone listed actually make the game more tactical. I was pointing out that Maelstrom (one of the bad points) doesn't make the game more tactical. It makes it more random, which can help to at least alter set battleplans but it's often far too random to reward tactical play and can lead to wins through sheer luck of the draw.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:20:48


Post by: Ishagu


Who says you have to play Maelstrom?
I play it at fun, casual games.

Ironically 7th edition was far more about maths and worked around invincible units that were mathematically near impossible to destroy.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:22:01


Post by: amanita


A trick question, actually. I've played regularly since 3rd edition, but since 5th my group has adopted our own set of house rules.

So yes, I play 40K, but no I don't play GW's latest iteration of the game...and most likely never will again.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:22:24


Post by: Grimtuff


Slipspace wrote:
 nurgle5 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Maelstrom makes the game more tactical?


Can you expound on this please?


It's in response to another poster's comment that all of the bad things about 40k someone listed actually make the game more tactical. I was pointing out that Maelstrom (one of the bad points) doesn't make the game more tactical. It makes it more random, which can help to at least alter set battleplans but it's often far too random to reward tactical play and can lead to wins through sheer luck of the draw.


Agreed. Maelstrom is like one of the dumbest ideas ever put forth into 40k. I'm fine with the card aspect of having secondary (sometimes secret) objectives, 2nd ed had it and they were great. But the fact they change from turn to turn when IRL a full game of 40k would be about 5 minutes of combat is daft.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:23:15


Post by: Crablezworth


8th ed is hot garbage, only thing left is 30k until they ruin that.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:24:38


Post by: Ishagu


Maelstrom is only dumb if you can't enjoy games where the result doesn't matter. If you must win then no, it's too random.

It can be a lot of fun to try and work around Maelstrom missions with the cards directing play in unexpected ways. It's strictly casual, but it's fun.

Hey, did you guys know that not every game is played at a tournament? Means you don't have to just care about the result.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 14:58:28


Post by: Sim-Life


I kind of agree with both sides here honestly (however off topic it may be).

Ishagu IS a white knight but he's right in that saying there's NO depth to 40k is incorrect, otherwise you wouldn't be able to sit back at the end of a game and analyze your mistakes or say "I should have done that instead of this and then this might have happened".

Lance845 isn't a troll but he IS a vocal minority who is refusing to acknowledge that knowing the averages of dice doesn't mean you automatically win the game, because Mathhammer is a trap believed only by those who don't play the game often enough to have their dice swing either great for or against you at critical moments and then having to switch your plans around to compensate for that.

Maelstrom objectives are the same in that I've won games because I managed to get a clutch objective score or what have you. At the end of the day different people can like different things, I feel that if you're on here complaining that 40k isn't to your liking you should go and play Warmachine or something because really 40k is about having fun in the setting, not about super serious competition. Also stop going on about how 30k is so much better because games set during the Heresy is a mistake and space marines as a playable army are literally the worst thing about the whole setting.

Anyway this is all off topic.

Yes I've played 40k in the last year, but not lately (the last two months) because I'm moving house and haven't had the time or petrol money or what have you.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:02:59


Post by: Grimtuff


 Ishagu wrote:
Maelstrom is only dumb if you can't enjoy games where the result doesn't matter. If you must win then no, it's too random.

It can be a lot of fun to try and work around Maelstrom missions with the cards directing play in unexpected ways. It's strictly casual, but it's fun.

Hey, did you guys know that not every game is played at a tournament? Means you don't have to just care about the result.


IOW proof you know literally nothing about me or how I play.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:14:51


Post by: Eldarsif


The problem in 40k is that all information is open information, so baiting or goading opponents depends almost entirely on them not being good enough to understand what's happening.


Not necessarily. A player can get cocky or over-extend themselves. You are propositioning that people act like AI that can only take their perceived optimal route through the equation when the fact is that people are a bit more of a wildcard. One player trying to goad another players means the other player must read their opponents goad while they are themselves trying to get the other player to make mistakes.

I must admit I feel like a quite a few people here are treating their opponents as if they were just AI dummies that act in completely planned manner.

I am also going to take this "tactics" discussion further. Chess doesn't contain any hidden information so to speak except what your opponent does. Would that not by these aforementioned definition imply that chess has no tactic? For the record I would personally argue chess is more tactical than Warhammer 40k.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:17:04


Post by: oni


I play as often as I can. Currently it averages to roughly twice a month, but has been on the decline because I have 'new shinny' syndrome something terrible. This can be a difficult hurdle to overcome when also trying to actually play games.

I can sympathize with Stormatious. I get supper paranoid about my stuff. I've suffered the peril of varnish frosting my beautiful models. I've also encountered some exceedingly un-conscientious players over the years where I feel they're a little too careless around my stuff.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:19:09


Post by: bigern314


I haven't played a game of 40k in decades, since a Con game in the early 00's. But I'm getting ready to fool around with the old Rogue Trader rules and run some narrative games with that.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:21:12


Post by: Sir Heckington


I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:24:47


Post by: Ishagu


 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.


What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:31:53


Post by: Melissia


Played about... four or five games last month?


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:32:34


Post by: Sir Heckington


 Ishagu wrote:
 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.


What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.


40k at a small scale (250-750) is incredibly unbalanced. Not to mention very swingy. It is the game. I do not enjoy 40k as is. I prefer more indepth things, and 40k is very simplified. That's not a terrible thing, but not the game I'm looking for.


Which is a shame, as the models and lore are great, but none of the 3 main games really suit my fancy.



Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:35:29


Post by: Argive


Another one of these threads eh?

I think there should be an option for "I play regularly(twice a month?)

Understanding maths is important, of course it is. There is a chance and die involved.. The game really shines when math hammer DOES NOT WORK THE WAY ITS SUPPOSED TO and you have to devise alternative strategies because pointing and clicking will no longer work in the long run so you have to adapt and.

This is pretty anecdotal but I've played a lot of games where I got obliterated in early turns because dice were heavily in my opponent's favour and they went first etc. Never conceded a game and quit and managed to pull off draws & wins whilst getting tabled.

Of course there will be games where you just cannot claw it back and get really unlucky. Like any game involving an element of chance... If your opponent rolls savagely above average but does not manoeuvre correctly. I dont understand hate and complaints about 40k. Not sure why people are absolutely determined to justify their hate for a game they don't play or collect or even paint for... Whatever gets people through the day though.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:38:25


Post by: Skinflint Games


Played a little 2nd Ed earlier in the year, little bit of 8th.. also Grimdark Future, bit of Epic and our own systems.

Not going to say it's all awful, but the basic limitations from my point of view are:

IGO-UGO

Movement phase then Firing Phase. WHY can't I fire and then move??

And then there's the volume of stuff you need to play it. To play GDF I printed off three sheets of paper - to play the equivalent game of 40k I would have had to buy the rulebook, Codex Astra Militarum and Codex Orks, which turns it into a pretty expensive deal.

Still, wouldn't say I hate it, just that it seems a little ploddy compared to some of the other stuff. Going to try AoS again tomorrow night, see how that stacks up against our system and One Page Rules Age Of Fantasy: Regiments


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 15:39:04


Post by: Insectum7


My last game was a week and a half ago. Since the second child was born it's a little hard to find the time for a game. I just finished putting together a home gaming table, so I can now play without being away from the fam.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 16:01:45


Post by: TechnoWitch


I've basically quit 40k. In the last 4 months or so I've probably only played two games, one being just this past weekend. I only played those two mostly as favors. Last weekend I was helping a friend practice their competitive list and half way through the first turn turn of the game I already regretted playing and zoned out because of how brain dead it felt. It's a shame because I really like the models and lore, the game is just so boring to me now. I've mainly switched to 30k and have been having a blast playing that.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 16:13:24


Post by: Stormonu


 Sir Heckington wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.


What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.


40k at a small scale (250-750) is incredibly unbalanced. Not to mention very swingy. It is the game. I do not enjoy 40k as is. I prefer more indepth things, and 40k is very simplified. That's not a terrible thing, but not the game I'm looking for.


Which is a shame, as the models and lore are great, but none of the 3 main games really suit my fancy.



40K seems to play best at about 1K points using the old FOC and with objectives vs. “Kill them All”.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 16:22:57


Post by: Sir Heckington


 Stormonu wrote:
 Sir Heckington wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.


What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.


40k at a small scale (250-750) is incredibly unbalanced. Not to mention very swingy. It is the game. I do not enjoy 40k as is. I prefer more indepth things, and 40k is very simplified. That's not a terrible thing, but not the game I'm looking for.


Which is a shame, as the models and lore are great, but none of the 3 main games really suit my fancy.



40K seems to play best at about 1K points using the old FOC and with objectives vs. “Kill them All”.


Yeah I wouldn't mind that. I don't have much in money so I can't afford a full 2k or even 1k army. Both me and my dad have an SC so we've been designing a ruleset that's sort of an inbetween of 40k and Kill Team. We're doing playtesting right now and it's been super fun so far.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 16:28:48


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I don't play often enough to get bored by the game, meaning I never play the same list twice, neither do my opponents (aside from some 1000P tournaments in our group). I still enjoy 8th and consider it a vast improvement to 6th and 7th in everything. Narrative gaming lacked a little but with Vigilus it gained enough content. Terrain was fixed by Cities of Death and tactics were more relevant than in 6th and 7th even with only Indices. The game is still rather slow and nothing compared to Lotr, but for larger games I'm eager to try out Apokalypse. IGOUGO holds 40K back.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 16:36:02


Post by: Peregrine


 Eldarsif wrote:
You are propositioning that people act like AI that can only take their perceived optimal route through the equation when the fact is that people are a bit more of a wildcard. One player trying to goad another players means the other player must read their opponents goad while they are themselves trying to get the other player to make mistakes.


"Hope your opponent is a weaker player and makes mistakes" is not strategic depth.

Chess doesn't contain any hidden information so to speak except what your opponent does. Would that not by these aforementioned definition imply that chess has no tactic?


Pretty much. There's a reason that chess has been solved by computers to the point that human players have essentially a 0% win rate and high-level human play consists mostly of having an excellent memory for all of the correct plays in every possible situation and making the fewest mistakes in executing them. Chess only seems to be a very deep game because solving it requires processing more data than humans are capable of working with and so lower-level players have to make more guesses about what's happening.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:26:57


Post by: Just Tony


I get a game in damn near every home station drill, but it's a game of 3rd Ed.

My opponent also stays current, and I'm sure he wants me to at least try 8th, but I see very little to make me WANT to sit through a game of that.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:33:10


Post by: Lance845


I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:33:24


Post by: Horst


I play lots of ITC tournaments.... enough that I'm actually in the top 100 overall of the ITC rankings! woo!


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:34:48


Post by: JohnnyHell


OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:35:34


Post by: Eldarsif


Pretty much. There's a reason that chess has been solved by computers to the point that human players have essentially a 0% win rate and high-level human play consists mostly of having an excellent memory for all of the correct plays in every possible situation and making the fewest mistakes in executing them.


You are still proving the point of the original argument that there is no such thing as tactic in games.

It's at this point the goalpost moving begins and people claim that game A has real "tactics" but not game B so I am checking myself out of this discussion.

I do hope everyone here enjoys their favourite game and has some excellent people to play with. I myself am going to play some 40k and AoS this weekend with some excellent people. Life is good!


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:40:07


Post by: Lance845


 Eldarsif wrote:
Pretty much. There's a reason that chess has been solved by computers to the point that human players have essentially a 0% win rate and high-level human play consists mostly of having an excellent memory for all of the correct plays in every possible situation and making the fewest mistakes in executing them.


You are still proving the point of the original argument that there is no such thing as tactic in games.

It's at this point the goalpost moving begins and people claim that game A has real "tactics" but not game B so I am checking myself out of this discussion.

I do hope everyone here enjoys their favourite game and has some excellent people to play with. I myself am going to play some 40k and AoS this weekend with some excellent people. Life is good!


Chess is based on known information.

Apoc as an example has everyone issue their units orders before all orders are revealed. What orders you give is going to depend on what you THINk your opponent has planned for the next turn. What order you activate you units in is based on what orders each of you have issued. Cards can potentially allow you to change orders. When and how they are used... Every step of that process is tactics in a game.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:41:45


Post by: Stux


 Lance845 wrote:
I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.


I think your distinction between tactics and efficiency here is arbitrary, possibly even imaginary.

All tactical decisions ultimately come down to what allocation of resources will most efficiently move you towards your goal. Not just in 40k, in anything.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:43:30


Post by: Horst


 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>


We can't have a discussion about 40k without pages of people saying it's a terrible, non-tactical, 100% math based game with no redeeming qualities!


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:49:31


Post by: Insectum7


 Horst wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>


We can't have a discussion about 40k without pages of people saying it's a terrible, non-tactical, 100% math based game with no redeeming qualities!


Don't forget "You're playing it wrong! ITC/Narrative 4 lyfe!"


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:51:13


Post by: Lance845


 Stux wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.


I think your distinction between tactics and efficiency here is arbitrary, possibly even imaginary.

All tactical decisions ultimately come down to what allocation of resources will most efficiently move you towards your goal. Not just in 40k, in anything.


Well your wrong about that. Look at my apoc examples. There is no math equation for those choices because they are based on too many unknowns. Its unsolvable. 40k doesnt have that. Its just effeciency. You can stretch your resources with intelligent application and subterfuge. You can just apply them effeciently or not.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:58:58


Post by: Stux


 Lance845 wrote:
 Stux wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.


I think your distinction between tactics and efficiency here is arbitrary, possibly even imaginary.

All tactical decisions ultimately come down to what allocation of resources will most efficiently move you towards your goal. Not just in 40k, in anything.


Well your wrong about that. Look at my apoc examples. There is no math equation for those choices because they are based on too many unknowns. Its unsolvable. 40k doesnt have that. Its just effeciency. You can stretch your resources with intelligent application and subterfuge. You can just apply them effeciently or not.


I just strongly disagree with your premise. You're looking at too narrow snapshots of a game. When you target a unit, you need to consider where you want your units to be positioned for efficient attacks next turn, and the turn after that - constantly reacting to your opponent's movements. That is extremely tactical.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 17:59:38


Post by: Elbows


Played a lot (almost weekly) for the past two years, and then hit a wall. Really losing interested based mainly on the ever-increasing lethality/power creep/unstoppable bs.

I just found myself immediately losing all interest when someone had a unit rolling 90+ dice (often more than once). My give-a-gak meter just fills up and I don't see why I've bothered painting anything.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:01:20


Post by: Stormonu


 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>


Honestly, how you play or view the game has an enormous effect on whether you play, and the style you play.

As I stated above, I played recently, but if you asked me to play at 2K points with the standard, unaltered rules, I would not have played.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:04:04


Post by: Racerguy180


Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.


What's the one tactic? I've won games in multiple different ways so clearly there isn't just one.


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


Slipspace wrote:
 nurgle5 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Maelstrom makes the game more tactical?


Can you expound on this please?


It's in response to another poster's comment that all of the bad things about 40k someone listed actually make the game more tactical. I was pointing out that Maelstrom (one of the bad points) doesn't make the game more tactical. It makes it more random, which can help to at least alter set battleplans but it's often far too random to reward tactical play and can lead to wins through sheer luck of the draw.



I regularly feint, pincer, bait & switch, send a unit to its certain doom so that the other units can do their job. Sometimes I dont have a 1st turn shooting phase since I'm purposefully out of LOS(both ways), use full strength infantry, etc...

I'm pretty sure luck has something to do with whether or not a real life operation/skirmish/battle goes the way you've planned. Mike Tyson said it best, "Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the mouth". The game really boils down to how you react, with which unit, when circumstances bare it & how you acheived it.

If you imagine that you are actually the one getting shot at, it kinda gives you a different POV than just mathematics.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:25:30


Post by: LunaWolvesLoyalist


I played 7th ed after taking a break since 4th ed. Enjoyed it but fell in love with 30k.

When 8th ed hit I tried it, despised it. Stuck with 30k and never looked back.

Hoping 9th ed will not be horrible.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:35:57


Post by: Sim-Life


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Horst wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>


We can't have a discussion about 40k without pages of people saying it's a terrible, non-tactical, 100% math based game with no redeeming qualities!


Don't forget "You're playing it wrong! ITC/Narrative 4 lyfe!"


Also "30k is literally the perfect 40k system."


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:43:48


Post by: Sir Heckington


Only siths deal in absolutes...

I'm not sure of the point of arguing over 'how' tactical 40k is it. Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter, you can enjoy or dislike the game either way. I personally dislike it, many like it, this argument seems pointless.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:43:59


Post by: Crimson Devil


 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>



I knew people would volunteer that information regardless of whether I asked for it.

It is interesting to see the mental gymnastics going on.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:45:53


Post by: Lance845


Racerguy180 wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.


What's the one tactic? I've won games in multiple different ways so clearly there isn't just one.


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


Slipspace wrote:
 nurgle5 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Maelstrom makes the game more tactical?


Can you expound on this please?


It's in response to another poster's comment that all of the bad things about 40k someone listed actually make the game more tactical. I was pointing out that Maelstrom (one of the bad points) doesn't make the game more tactical. It makes it more random, which can help to at least alter set battleplans but it's often far too random to reward tactical play and can lead to wins through sheer luck of the draw.



I regularly feint, pincer, bait & switch, send a unit to its certain doom so that the other units can do their job. Sometimes I dont have a 1st turn shooting phase since I'm purposefully out of LOS(both ways), use full strength infantry, etc...

I'm pretty sure luck has something to do with whether or not a real life operation/skirmish/battle goes the way you've planned. Mike Tyson said it best, "Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the mouth". The game really boils down to how you react, with which unit, when circumstances bare it & how you acheived it.

If you imagine that you are actually the one getting shot at, it kinda gives you a different POV than just mathematics.


The important part is that by the time you get to make any decisions the opponent has already commited and co.pleted all of their actions. You make all your choices with a full final and real snap shot of the current game. Even if the opponent has strats that could change things (rare) you know how much cp they have and what strats they can spend it on (a big component of being a tourney player). Your unit can move knowing that when it stops these targets will be available. And you can shoot your guns at those targets to maximize effeciency. And your opponent has no play to stop you or add risk to any of that. Turn by turn, unit by unit, phase by phase you alternate between waiting to see the state of the table and making all your choices based on that state with no foiling your choices by the opponent who is waiting.

Thats why its not tactical. No decision you make is a risk against the opponent. Its only a risk against the dice gods. Your gambling against the game. Not your opponent.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 18:53:28


Post by: Just Tony


 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>


To be fair, as I play Classichammer I felt it needed some clarity.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 19:06:36


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


1-2 times a week, regularly as a clock.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 21:04:40


Post by: Vankraken


This can be very misleading as to the average person I am a non player at this point and yet by the options of this poll I am in the same category as somebody who plays multiple times a week. I have completely abandoned 8th because I just can't find any fun in the game but I occasionally play a game of 7th when I can get somebody who's willing to play (stopped going to my local store because I don't play 8th so I don't see people to get together a game of 7th).


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 22:06:24


Post by: Ishagu


 Lance845 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?


1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.


What's the one tactic? I've won games in multiple different ways so clearly there isn't just one.


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


Slipspace wrote:
 nurgle5 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Maelstrom makes the game more tactical?


Can you expound on this please?


It's in response to another poster's comment that all of the bad things about 40k someone listed actually make the game more tactical. I was pointing out that Maelstrom (one of the bad points) doesn't make the game more tactical. It makes it more random, which can help to at least alter set battleplans but it's often far too random to reward tactical play and can lead to wins through sheer luck of the draw.



I regularly feint, pincer, bait & switch, send a unit to its certain doom so that the other units can do their job. Sometimes I dont have a 1st turn shooting phase since I'm purposefully out of LOS(both ways), use full strength infantry, etc...

I'm pretty sure luck has something to do with whether or not a real life operation/skirmish/battle goes the way you've planned. Mike Tyson said it best, "Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the mouth". The game really boils down to how you react, with which unit, when circumstances bare it & how you acheived it.

If you imagine that you are actually the one getting shot at, it kinda gives you a different POV than just mathematics.


The important part is that by the time you get to make any decisions the opponent has already commited and co.pleted all of their actions. You make all your choices with a full final and real snap shot of the current game. Even if the opponent has strats that could change things (rare) you know how much cp they have and what strats they can spend it on (a big component of being a tourney player). Your unit can move knowing that when it stops these targets will be available. And you can shoot your guns at those targets to maximize effeciency. And your opponent has no play to stop you or add risk to any of that. Turn by turn, unit by unit, phase by phase you alternate between waiting to see the state of the table and making all your choices based on that state with no foiling your choices by the opponent who is waiting.

Thats why its not tactical. No decision you make is a risk against the opponent. Its only a risk against the dice gods. Your gambling against the game. Not your opponent.


I just googled Tactical and based on the official definition the game does involve tactics and you are wrong.

Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.

Now move on please. You're detailing the topic based on your misguided vendetta.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/11 22:27:05


Post by: flandarz


I'm in the boat of: "half the folks say it's bad, half the folks say it's great, so it's probably somewhere in the middle". Everyone has different expectations of things, and personal biases and whatnot, so it's pretty difficult to find a subject that 100% of people agree on.

As for me? All my game partners have, like, life stuff, so I've been without a game for awhile. And while I feel like 8th edition is a fine game, I also recognize the areas in which it could be improved to become a *better* game.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 01:54:05


Post by: cvtuttle


I play - on average - about a game a week.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 02:22:35


Post by: Ouze


I played actual 40K when 5th edition was out, when the Assault On Black Reach starter set came out.

I don't think I've played an actual game of 40k proper in a decade.

I still love the lore, and I love the modelling aspects. Painting them is a necessary evil at best, but I do it.

I do play Space Hulk once in a while though, and would like to try Klll Team at some point. I hear it's pretty simple.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 02:22:55


Post by: ArcaneHorror


I've played two 40K games and one Kill Team match. I really want to do more, but all of the rules, stats, and math calculating when you get certain rolls for certain actions often has me spooked and confused. I want to dive into the game, but my insecurities and feeling of being overwhelmed has really kept me from getting engaged all that much.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 02:29:19


Post by: Peregrine


 Ishagu wrote:
Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.


Yes, that's technically tactics by the literal definition of the word, but it's pretty weak and shallow tactics relative to other games. Usually this sort of decision is very straightforward and mostly made in list construction. Your suicide plasma squads will always be willing to die to do more damage, your objective campers will rarely make that trade. The times when you genuinely have a difficult decision to make are few and far between.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 06:48:10


Post by: wuestenfux


Well, 40k is a tactical game. Strategy would be on a larger scale, larger than the skirmish based games.
It requires all sort of tactical decisions such as the basic: the movement of units and priority target schedule.
This applies to each army.
Moreover, tactical finesse such as refused flank, symetrie de position are more for the advanced player.
I've heard here that math plays a significant role. It does, but at a very low level.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 08:19:51


Post by: Jidmah


 Peregrine wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.


Yes, that's technically tactics by the literal definition of the word, but it's pretty weak and shallow tactics relative to other games. Usually this sort of decision is very straightforward and mostly made in list construction. Your suicide plasma squads will always be willing to die to do more damage, your objective campers will rarely make that trade. The times when you genuinely have a difficult decision to make are few and far between.


That's also true for most games you're experienced with. I'm a MtG veteran who has placed high in multiple tournaments - on a gaming night playing a dozen games, there are about 3-4 times where I actually need to stop and think, at all other times, the decision I make is dictated by experience and tactical knowledge. A chess player would tell you the same, you make most plays the way you do because experience and tactical knowledge dictate what to do, not because you have thought through all possible outcomes.

It's the same for those plasma vets - just because you know from experience that it's always better to put them next to a vehicle and sacrifice them doesn't make it a non-decision.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 12:49:25


Post by: Lance845


 Jidmah wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.


Yes, that's technically tactics by the literal definition of the word, but it's pretty weak and shallow tactics relative to other games. Usually this sort of decision is very straightforward and mostly made in list construction. Your suicide plasma squads will always be willing to die to do more damage, your objective campers will rarely make that trade. The times when you genuinely have a difficult decision to make are few and far between.


That's also true for most games you're experienced with. I'm a MtG veteran who has placed high in multiple tournaments - on a gaming night playing a dozen games, there are about 3-4 times where I actually need to stop and think, at all other times, the decision I make is dictated by experience and tactical knowledge. A chess player would tell you the same, you make most plays the way you do because experience and tactical knowledge dictate what to do, not because you have thought through all possible outcomes.

It's the same for those plasma vets - just because you know from experience that it's always better to put them next to a vehicle and sacrifice them doesn't make it a non-decision.


It's not that it's a non decision. Its that it's a decision with such a obviously superior option that it creates the illusion of choice. The illusion of choice is a concept in game design. A good example is from Vanilla world of warcraft if anyone played it. Each class had dozens of talents. and "Technically" there were probably hundreds of potential builds you could make picking all your little perks at each level. But the truth was there was only 2 or 3 viable builds per a class... maybe even 1, which made all the various other options LOOK like choices you were making but when the other option is a non option it's not REALLY a choice it's just a mistake someone can make because of ignorance.

Yeah, you COULD do the sub-optimal thing in 40k. But thats the illusion of choice. And that means it's not REALLY a tactical decision. In Chess each move actually impacts the field and the opponent responds. If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent. In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 13:42:20


Post by: Horst


The fact that you can put plasma vets next to a vehicle and kill it is obvious... the tactical challenge then becomes how to make that happen? If the opponent has any intelligence at all, then he screens his tanks... potentially with multiple levels of screening. I've at times screened vehicles from assaults like this with other vehicles... so how do you remove the screens to get your plasma vets in? Do you deep strike them further back, knowing you'll only get a single shot instead of double-tapping? Do you hold them back until turn 3, hoping you can clear more screens, so you have a straight shot to a tank? Do you have any way of clearing a non-infantry screen to get into deep striking? Should you pick an easier target for your plasma vets?

You guys make it seem like a trivial thing, "oh, just deep strike the plasma guys in rapid fire range of a valuable target" but you're missing that the opponent knows you can do that, and so is going to prevent you (or try to prevent you) from doing that through positioning, and choosing how to counter that is obviously tactical.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 13:52:38


Post by: Jidmah


 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 13:52:57


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Out of curiosity, what is the "Beginner army" that people keep posting about?


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 14:09:41


Post by: Stormonu


 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the "Beginner army" that people keep posting about?


The armies from the starter set - marines are generalists, so they tend to have a bit of a buffer to handle beginner mistakes and still recover.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 14:26:15


Post by: Lance845


 Jidmah wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.
i started with and have roughly 8k worth of nids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I used to have necrons but they were boring and dull. I got a small force of tau including 6 crisis suits and 2 10 man units of breachers with devilfish. I own zero riptides.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 15:59:02


Post by: Racerguy180


 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is a tactical game. Strategy would be on a larger scale, larger than the skirmish based games.
It requires all sort of tactical decisions such as the basic: the movement of units and priority target schedule.
This applies to each army.
Moreover, tactical finesse such as refused flank, symetrie de position are more for the advanced player.
I've heard here that math plays a significant role. It does, but at a very low level.


pretty much this.


risk is a much better representative example of strategy than 40k, but 40k is full of tactical decisions that can be very complex.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 16:08:52


Post by: Horst


 Jidmah wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.


Playing Knights involves a lot of decisions as well IMO, you need to figure out what can kill them, and how best to protect them from that. It's not easy in a meta where Lord Discordants can fly 40" across the board and gut a Knight, or where Rocksaw weilding Aoclytes can appear 3" away from you and rip you in half. Decisions with Knights tend to involve "how do I protect this model as best as I can" rather than "how do I kill the enemy", and if you can outlast him until turn 4-5 you can pull out a win. Most of my ITC games are generally low scoring because of this. It's not that there are fewer decisions, they're just often more reactionary to the decisions of your opponent.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/12 17:38:31


Post by: Strg Alt


@OP:

I have played one or two games in 2018. None in 2019.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
licclerich wrote:
Got sick and tired playing against people so I play solo now but 40k is not the game to do this. Played 3 games and will play my 4th next week.


Playing solo is not impossible but requires more work. You will have to conceive a behaviour pattern for the opposing forces. Also it beats playing those awful pick-up games in those confined GW stores.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/13 07:14:47


Post by: Jidmah


 Horst wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.


Playing Knights involves a lot of decisions as well IMO, you need to figure out what can kill them, and how best to protect them from that. It's not easy in a meta where Lord Discordants can fly 40" across the board and gut a Knight, or where Rocksaw weilding Aoclytes can appear 3" away from you and rip you in half. Decisions with Knights tend to involve "how do I protect this model as best as I can" rather than "how do I kill the enemy", and if you can outlast him until turn 4-5 you can pull out a win. Most of my ITC games are generally low scoring because of this. It's not that there are fewer decisions, they're just often more reactionary to the decisions of your opponent.


Heh, I didn't mean to beat on knights, I was just picturing a castellan and some helverins sitting in a corner and shooting - I'm gladly proven wrong


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/15 21:02:45


Post by: Captain Brown


I have played a game in the last year. More than one in fact.

Cheers,

CB


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 07:53:04


Post by: happy_inquisitor


 Lance845 wrote:


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


So when my opponent in my last tournament put some units into reserve to gain positional advantage and then I placed some units out of ideal shooting position to zone out their reserve units you are saying that i was not guessing what they had in mind and was not trying to subvert their plans or negate the advantage they sought.

Weird, both me and my opponent thought that is exactly what was happening.

I think sometimes that you play an entirely different game.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 08:34:29


Post by: Slipspace


happy_inquisitor wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


So when my opponent in my last tournament put some units into reserve to gain positional advantage and then I placed some units out of ideal shooting position to zone out their reserve units you are saying that i was not guessing what they had in mind and was not trying to subvert their plans or negate the advantage they sought.

Weird, both me and my opponent thought that is exactly what was happening.

I think sometimes that you play an entirely different game.


I think the problem is that, yet again, that sort of decision is being made with full information on both sides. Yes, technically it's a tactical decision to screen out areas of the battlefield against deep strike and I've seen weaker players not do it properly, or forget in the mddle of their first turn and leave a gap in their screen, but it's not a difficult decision you have to make, it's just a thing you need to remember. Importantly, it's a decision that has an objective correct answer. You can prevent it happening with a checklist of procedures to follow in each turn.

Tactical depth is created when players have meaningful decisions to make, based on judgement and lack of full information such that they need to balance risk vs reward without being easily able to calculate either of those things. As an example from my game of X-Wing yesterday, I needed to decide whether to go after a flanking enemy ship (Soontir, for those that are familiar with the game) or continue my attack on the central part of my opponent's squad. I'd already done a small amount of damage to one ship but the flanker was going to be difficult to kill if left to the late game. However, the flanker didn't need to engage and my opponent might decide to break off or move slowly such that if I tried to target him I'd be left with no shots at anything. Additionally, moving to target the flanker would likely leave me exposed to free shots from the rest of my opponent's squad so I needed to consider if the pay-off was worth taking that damage for - and that's without even knowing if I'd get shots on the flanker if I went after him. In the end I decided the risk was worth it and actually surprised my opponent with how aggressively I went for the flanker, resulting in a kill in exchange for losing one of my weaker ships. This all comes aobut because neither of us have perfect knowledge - moves are decided on and locked in before any are executed but ships moving later have several ways they can potentially adjust their position after their move. What's interesting about this one scenario is that I'm not sure my opponent was wrong to do what he did. If I'd have gone after the bulk of his force and he'd have disengaged with his flanker, I would have a numerical advantage so maybe moving in to attack was the correct move after all, because he can't be sure if I'm going to move to engage his flanker or not. Both of us had risk/reward decisions to make and in both cases the advantage/disadvantage gained was always going to depend on how well we guessed our opponent's plan. That's one single turn of X-Wing and I think it had more genuine, non-trivial tactical decisions than my last 5 or 6 games of 40k combined. Importantly, there's no checklist or cheat-sheet that could have told me what the right decision was.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 09:20:09


Post by: Jidmah


I don't see how that decision is more meaningful or more tactical than similar decisions in a game of 40k. Some examples from my last ork game:

1) I have a SSAG, a unit of lootas and a trio of dakka jets. All other units are infantry, but I have two deff dreads in reserves. The most dangerous things to my game plan on the other side are a storm raven, a relic whirlwind, a quad-las Chronus, interceptors (primaris with 12" deepstrike protection) and a unit of helblasters. What are the "obvious" choices? Which unit gets which stratagems?

2) Turn 2, I have a unit of shoota boyz at 5 locked in combat on the right flank, a unit of choppa boyz at 9 on the left flank (both viable targets for green tide), can da jump 30 slugga boyz and have two deff dreads in the tellyporta. Due to the interceptors the only things I can get within 9" of are intercessors, but one flank has agressors and an ironclad dread, and the other has Chronus, Calgar (worth 1d3+1 VP), Honor Guard and some more intercessors and interceptors. What units do you bring in? Where do you bring them in? What are the "obvious" choices?

3) There is a unit of Incpetors (jump troops) in the backfield that just murdered your SSAG and can threaten your lootas next turn. Do you charge a nearby warboss into them, taking him out of the game because if he does, he will never join the frontlines again? Jump a unit of tank bustas onto them to kill them with D3 rokkits? Send the warphead after them? Use lootas to kill them? What are the "obvious" choices here?

In retrospective, I'm pretty sure I took the wrong decision on at least one of those, but I'm sure that I'd only taken different decisions if had known the dice before rolling.

The biggest difference between the X-Wing scenario and mine are that the risks mostly come from dice results rather than enemy player actions, but the decisions you need to make are the same.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 09:37:43


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Jidmah wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.


Moving the king is not the only way to get out of check. You can also take the piece putting it in check or move a different piece to block the line of attack (if the piece threatening the king is not a knight).

If your king is in a position which is vulnerable but also limited in escape routes and your pieces cannot move to protect the king then you have already made previous mistakes and are being punished for those mistakes.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 10:32:19


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Slipspace wrote:
happy_inquisitor wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.


So when my opponent in my last tournament put some units into reserve to gain positional advantage and then I placed some units out of ideal shooting position to zone out their reserve units you are saying that i was not guessing what they had in mind and was not trying to subvert their plans or negate the advantage they sought.

Weird, both me and my opponent thought that is exactly what was happening.

I think sometimes that you play an entirely different game.


I think the problem is that, yet again, that sort of decision is being made with full information on both sides. Yes, technically it's a tactical decision to screen out areas of the battlefield against deep strike and I've seen weaker players not do it properly, or forget in the mddle of their first turn and leave a gap in their screen, but it's not a difficult decision you have to make, it's just a thing you need to remember. Importantly, it's a decision that has an objective correct answer. You can prevent it happening with a checklist of procedures to follow in each turn.




It was a meaningful tactical decision. I have to decide on where i want my main force, relative to that I have to nominate certain units to push out of optimal position and potentially sacrifice them to foil the apparent plans of my opponent. At this time i have no idea if my opponent is actually going to try to come in behind my force or is just executing a bluff to push me out of position, perhaps they are just reserving their force to protect it from a phase of shooting before it drops in and begins to act. All of those decisions are complicated by the positioning of terrain on the table and the existing positions of the opposing force. For every model I push out of its optimal position relative to the existing forces on the table my opponent has weakened my effectiveness that turn - but I make that choice to weaken their effectiveness on the turn that the reserves arrive.

The idea that I have full information is just wrong. I know what is in reserve but i absolutely do not know why it is in reserve, what the intent is or therefore where it will appear and what it will attempt to do.

If you think there is an objectively correct answer then I guess you must be winning every tournament ever - if it is all so binary and you know the answer why would you ever lose a game? Is that the case? Do you win every tournament out there - or are you perhaps mistaken and the game has more to it than you are seeing.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 10:54:42


Post by: Wayniac


I play infrequently, mostly because I'm always changing my mind about army projects and feel my Death Guard, which is the only army I have available to play while I build more, is pretty lackluster. So like usually every couple of months, but I have gone like 6+ months without playing in the past.

Also, anyone who says 40k is tactically complex is an idiot or has never played anything outside the GW bubble, plain and simple. Its "tactics" are all just variations of the same thing rather than actual tactics like you find in other games. So yeah it has "tactics" if you consider tweaks to doing the same general concept as tactics.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 11:04:34


Post by: Sunsanvil


Love the models. Hate the game (rules). So I'm a sort of fan..who doesn't actually play.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 11:10:29


Post by: Jidmah


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.


Moving the king is not the only way to get out of check. You can also take the piece putting it in check or move a different piece to block the line of attack (if the piece threatening the king is not a knight).

If your king is in a position which is vulnerable but also limited in escape routes and your pieces cannot move to protect the king then you have already made previous mistakes and are being punished for those mistakes.


That's just splitting hairs. According to his argumentation the choice would still be obvious and thus not a meaningful tactical decision.

Putting a king in check is no different from charging a warboss into a LRBT.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 14:46:03


Post by: Togusa


On average I get about 4 games per week.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 15:01:15


Post by: Slipspace


happy_inquisitor wrote:


The idea that I have full information is just wrong. I know what is in reserve but i absolutely do not know why it is in reserve, what the intent is or therefore where it will appear and what it will attempt to do.


This seems like another case of illusion of choice rather than actual choice. If it's a shortish-ranged shooting unit it wants to drop in rapid fire range of a juicy target. That target is usually very obvious. If it's an assault unit it wants to get as close as possible to a good assault target. That target is usually very obvious. If it's a long-range shooting unit it's likely just being kept off the board as protection. You can try to plead ignorance about why a unit is off the board all you want, but I'm not buying it. Likewise, the techniques to prevent deep strike aren't exactly rocket science and your opponent has very little influence over how you do that beyond trying to kill your screens. Theoretically these decisions can be dependent on terrain and relative positioning of units, but in practice that's not the case.

I'm not saying there are no tactics involved in 40k, rather those that exist are shallow and often largely negligible in their effects next to list building and match-ups. I don't play 40k tournaments, partly for those very reasons. To me it seems the people who are best at them are those who have the time and commitment to buy into the best army lists on a regular basis and who have the experience of playing against multiple types of different strong army lists so they can generate multiple mental checklists for the correct procedure to win those match-ups. This very thing happened in the later stages of the last LVO (quarter or semi-finals I think) where two people who practiced together frequently were paired up against one another and seemed to just be going through the tried and tested sequence of play required to maximise their chances of winning. Neither player seemed to have any options to try to alter the outcome beyond what they had already determined would happen. That's the very definition of tactically shallow for me - once models are on the board the outcome is very difficult to change.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 15:12:38


Post by: Nurglitch


It's funny, because in the Olympics, in swimming at least, the times people post in the prelims are a very good indicator of who is going to win in the final. But they still swim the final because who wins isn't determined by who is most likely to win.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/16 16:05:37


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Slipspace wrote:
happy_inquisitor wrote:


The idea that I have full information is just wrong. I know what is in reserve but i absolutely do not know why it is in reserve, what the intent is or therefore where it will appear and what it will attempt to do.


This seems like another case of illusion of choice rather than actual choice. If it's a shortish-ranged shooting unit it wants to drop in rapid fire range of a juicy target. That target is usually very obvious. If it's an assault unit it wants to get as close as possible to a good assault target. That target is usually very obvious. If it's a long-range shooting unit it's likely just being kept off the board as protection. You can try to plead ignorance about why a unit is off the board all you want, but I'm not buying it. Likewise, the techniques to prevent deep strike aren't exactly rocket science and your opponent has very little influence over how you do that beyond trying to kill your screens. Theoretically these decisions can be dependent on terrain and relative positioning of units, but in practice that's not the case.



The implied threat of a reserved unit is a tactic just as a pin or fork in chess is a tactic. To say that these are not tactical is to utterly refuse the conventional meaning of the word tactical. The same can be said of equivalent moves in 40K - the fact that a skilled player is more likely to anticipate the tactic that will be used does not diminish in any way the use of the word tactical for the gameplay in progress. If skill and understanding were not useful in understanding and countering them then perhaps the word tactical would not be appropriate.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/17 12:24:55


Post by: Ratius


I play a couple of times a month.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/17 19:11:31


Post by: Kaiyanwang


Mostly building and painting this year. Constantly moving took a toll.
I am having a blast tho, I like what I am doing and I like enough most of the new minis.

I suppose this was clear from the fact that I am less harsh on my comment on the rule design. I kinda gave up on the game as it is, at least as a priority above the craft-hobby part.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/17 19:12:49


Post by: Xenomancers


I paly 1-2 games per week. Usually playing 3-4 different armies.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/19 01:06:16


Post by: Loken's_cheesey_feet


I recently rejoined the hobby having not played since 5th edition (guessing last game was more than 5 years ago) and am really enjoying 8th.

Played 3 games in 5 weeks.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/19 01:29:25


Post by: Lance845


I played more games in the last 2 weeks than in the last 6 months. Apocalypse has completely revitalized the game for me.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/19 16:00:31


Post by: Red_Ink_Cat


I generally play a game every 1 or 2 months, although I took a hiatus after Adpeticon to get some new models painted up and have been neglecting playing right now in favor of Everchosen prep. The lack of local tournaments has not really helped but that's beyond my control.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/19 23:44:08


Post by: Sir Heckington


I played my first game of Apoc today at 150 PL with BCB. I got my ass handed to me, but it was fun. Most fun I've had in a while.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/20 06:51:03


Post by: CragHack


Played a few back when 8th launched. Sold everything 40k related after


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/20 08:52:14


Post by: Ishagu


 CragHack wrote:
Played a few back when 8th launched. Sold everything 40k related after


And why are you here now? Lol


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/20 12:18:51


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


I didn't play at all during 7th. Since 8th came out I am playing, on average, one game a week at the FLGS and one game a week at home. After a decade of decline 40k now has energy from clean rules, great models and a solid player base.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/20 14:15:33


Post by: endlesswaltz123


I haven't played since right at the end of 3rd edition. I've managed to keep up with the game since then as I will at some point dip my toe back in. The main reason I have not is because as we all know it's a very expensive hobby, both financially and in terms of time needed/spent.

The financial side of it I can afford, but the time side of it I cannot still currently. I'm not the sort of guy that can play with model that are not painted up to my standards, and I'm a slow painter.

Contrast paints however may be the thing to bring me back in.

I read many of the books though as the fluff has always been the main thing for me in terms of enjoyment.

Lastly, if I did come back into the hobby, I'd ideally like a really open minded but close knit group to play with. I'd be far more interested in narrative campaigns with custom rules rather than playing straight battles.


Do you actually play 40k? @ 2019/07/22 07:53:35


Post by: Rybrook


I started at the end of 2nd ed, played all of 3rd and dipped my toe in 4th.

After that is history till I joined dakka but I am only painting, I don't really have time to play