Switch Theme:

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

Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/22 20:15:53


Post by: Mezmorki


A criticism of 40K is that it isn’t very strategic or tactical, and that most “decisions” you make are really optimization problems to be “solved.” I’m curious about digging into this situation with an eye towards whether or not things have changed over various editions of 40k.

For purposes of this discussion, it’s probably useful to discuss the terms strategy, tactics, and optimization a bit more - and what makes these levels of decisions “interesting” or not from a gameplay depth perspective.

In 40K, I feel “strategy” (however deep or shallow it might be) principally hinges on (a) army building (b) deployment; and (c) a general “gameplan” for victory. These combine, essentially, to pose the player with questions about how to best use their army and some of its key abilities (deep strike, infiltration, etc.) to achieve the mission’s objectives. I.E., how do you use your army to score points. I should stress that “objectives” can vary quite a bit from mission to mission and edition to edition.

“Tactics” in 40k has to do mostly with unit-level decisions about how to move towards objectives. Do you move towards objectives quickly on the open, or slowly through cover. Do you hold out and delay for turn, and hedge your bets that you can sprint to the objective on a later turn. It has to do, principally, with aspects of position and maneuver and use of terrain and obstacles. Do you setup some units to screen and block others from being charged. Do you use vehicles to block LoS for advancing units. Etc.

“Optimizations” have to with decisions where there is, for lack of a better term, an ideal “solution” given a desired outcome. I think a lot of 40K comes down to optimization decisions. What is the ideal / optimal firing order for your units to ensure that you disable the biggest enemy threats first or deal the most possible damage. What stratagems do you employ now to leverage the most impact in a given turn. These are generally things that, in theory, can be solved with math and probability.

So then - what makes a given decision “interesting” ?

What attracts me to 40K (and some editions over others) is when you are faced with interesting decisions. And I feel decisions are interesting when there is ambiguity in the outcome of a decision, or when there are a few layers of considerations such that there is no optimal “right answer” because, ultimately, what is right will lie beyond your control. Which is to say, unforeseen consequences, the choices of your opponent makes, and other factors prevent you from making a clear optimal choice.

There is a fine line between ambiguity and “arbitrariness.” Too arbitrary and it can make careful thought irrelevant. Not ambiguous enough and it slides back into being an optimization decision. It’s a tension in the game design.

Given all the above, I want to highlight some cases where I think decisions are more interesting in some editions vs less interesting in others.

(1) Deep striking & scattering. Deep striking is, I feel, part of your strategic level play about how you use your forces to accomplish the mission objective. Where you place deep striking is critical. In older editions, the fact that deep striking units could scatter makes for more interesting decisions. Where you place a unit and how “risky” or aggressive you are in placing it was a serious consideration. If you got too greedy and scattered onto enemy forces, you could lose the whole unit! There was more nuance and “good ambiguity” in the placement.

(2) Difficult terrain & random move distances. Similar to the above. With movement in difficult terrain been variable, you can’t calculate with certainty how close you’ll be able to get, for example, to an objective or within range of an opponent. When you don’t move as far as you want, it an force you into a sub-optimal situation and can even prompt re-assessment of the overall “plan.”

(3) Must shoot the closest enemy unit (from 4th edition). This added a level of tactical nuance and interplay between your units and their relative positioning. By forcing an opponent to shoot at a certain closer unit over another, added a level of decision making to your force movement.

(4) Assaulting & random charge distances. This is a case of randomness that I actually don’t like that much, because on one hand, a very lucky roll (11 or 12” charge) can enable an assault unit to grossly outperform. Conversely, an unlucky roll can leave a unit stranded in the open. This is a case where core unit functionality is potentially undermined. Imagine if when you made a shooting attack you took 6” of the range of all weapons and then added a 2d6” instead. It’s a bridge too far IMHO.

(5) Variable game length - this is a risk-reward element that ties into the overall strategic level of the game. It the forces the player to at the very least consider contingencies. If you press early on an objective, and the game goes long, can you hold it if it’s an exposed spot? If you wait to move, and it ends early, will you miss your chance? Is there a middle solution to hedge your bets? It injects a bit of a strategic gamble element to the later turns of the game.

Obviously, my examples above highlight a preference towards older editions - but even then sometimes older editions swung too far (but newer editions swung too far the other way). Deep striking for example was, IMHO, overly punitive when you lost an entire unit due to an insanely unlucky roll. That doesn’t feel very ‘fun’ or fair. I think therefore many of these design topics there’s a middle ground to strike.

I’m curious what others think!



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 01:40:31


Post by: Rihgu


I don't think uncertainty/randomness makes the game interesting against other players. I love to play WHFB 8th edition "against myself" because there's so little influence I as a player actually have. Some target priority with shooting, the general movements, sure, but as soon as things are in charge range it plays itself out entirely. Random charge rolls, random to hit rolls, to wound rolls, save rolls, random Leadership results, all out of my hand! No more decisions to be made. It's great.

When I play games against other people, I expect that me and the other player will be making decisions. The more randomness/uncertainty (deep strike scatter, assault random distances, Ld test to shoot, difficult terrain, variable game length - or the worst possible example, turn by turn initiative rolls in Age of Sigmar!) the less decisions I'm making. At that point it's just me and the other player chatting while the dice tell us what the models are doing.

I think modern 40k is somehow the worst of all worlds. On one hand, you've got "precise" deep strike, terrain with set modifiers, free target priority sans some pretty hardline binary cases, which are all good things.
On the other hand, you still have random run/charge distances, you have "I spend this command point to roll a dice to see if I do a thing", you have psychic powers which may or may not happen and usually when they do they do a random amount of damage (if they do damage), you have prayers which are hugely impactful but can also whiff, and you've got lethality tuned up so high that if you whiff a roll your opponent crushes you back (unless they also whiff). That's the core rules. Then, per codex, you've got random rate of fire weapons with random damage (to the credit of the random ROF weapons, there is in most cases a core way of interacting with that - the Blast rule).
9th ends up feeling worse, for me, a lot of the time because it does do away with a lot of the stuff that would normally frustrate me in older editions but then it sneakily added back new, even more infuriating ways for my decisions to mean nothing.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 02:05:47


Post by: Daedalus81


(1) Deep striking & scattering. Deep striking is, I feel, part of your strategic level play about how you use your forces to accomplish the mission objective. Where you place deep striking is critical. In older editions, the fact that deep striking units could scatter makes for more interesting decisions. Where you place a unit and how “risky” or aggressive you are in placing it was a serious consideration. If you got too greedy and scattered onto enemy forces, you could lose the whole unit! There was more nuance and “good ambiguity” in the placement.

(2) Difficult terrain & random move distances. Similar to the above. With movement in difficult terrain been variable, you can’t calculate with certainty how close you’ll be able to get, for example, to an objective or within range of an opponent. When you don’t move as far as you want, it an force you into a sub-optimal situation and can even prompt re-assessment of the overall “plan.”

(3) Must shoot the closest enemy unit (from 4th edition). This added a level of tactical nuance and interplay between your units and their relative positioning. By forcing an opponent to shoot at a certain closer unit over another, added a level of decision making to your force movement.

(4) Assaulting & random charge distances. This is a case of randomness that I actually don’t like that much, because on one hand, a very lucky roll (11 or 12” charge) can enable an assault unit to grossly outperform. Conversely, an unlucky roll can leave a unit stranded in the open. This is a case where core unit functionality is potentially undermined. Imagine if when you made a shooting attack you took 6” of the range of all weapons and then added a 2d6” instead. It’s a bridge too far IMHO.

(5) Variable game length - this is a risk-reward element that ties into the overall strategic level of the game. It the forces the player to at the very least consider contingencies. If you press early on an objective, and the game goes long, can you hold it if it’s an exposed spot? If you wait to move, and it ends early, will you miss your chance? Is there a middle solution to hedge your bets? It injects a bit of a strategic gamble element to the later turns of the game.


1) This now becomes your ability to open up a hole for deepstrikers to arrive where you want them. You now play a risk at dropping into a terrible spot if your opponent has good backfield coverage and you fail to crack it.

The old system was too random.

2) Lots of detritus helps create an interesting battlefield to cross.

The old system was too random.

3) I don't necessarily disagree, but...

The old system was highly punishing to some armies and not others.

4) This now becomes a planning issue. Do you go for the average or wait in cover to get an extra move in to make sure you get a good charge?

With no pre-measure the old system was sort of similar in effect.

5) Set turns gives you a way to plan turns. And with the second playing scoring at the end of the game the decision making becomes more complex on turn 4, because you need to know how you'll stop them before you get to turn 5.

The old system rewarded the guy who was willing to gamble the "last" turn would be the actual last turn with a 50/50 shot.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 02:11:54


Post by: Galas


TL;DR "Old randomness good new randomness bad"

If I'm playing agaisnt my opponent I'm playing agaisnt him, not again the dice. The amount of luck I accept are the actual dice rolls for combat and shooting resolution (And the amount of rerolls actually works agaisnt the definitude of those rolls). Everything extra feels wrong. If I'm playing more of a simulation game that uses better random systems to put me in the place of a general in control of an imperfect army in an imperfect battlefield thants good. But that has never been 40k. The use of randomness by GW is normally abysmall, so I prefer a more clear approach to stuff. The game feels more gamey, but I'm actually playing it, not letting the game decide itself like old WHFB.

Old editions had different rules, better rules, worse rules. But in general all the randomness that we have left behind has been for the better.

Like deep striking. A rule that was only used when people could negate the bad outcomes to a point were it was worth it. And thats the thing many people when they talk about old rules never mention. All those "Things were better! We took risks back then!" fall flat when you remember how people actually played them outside some ultra casual garage hammer enviroment.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 03:39:26


Post by: ccs


 Galas wrote:
TL;DR "Old randomness good new randomness bad"


Correct.
Because when old randomness triggered it had things that occurred. You're shot scattered for better/worse, your deep-strikers landed off target (how much worse this was for them was generally determined by how risky you were willing to play it concerning your intended LZ), your reserves fail to show up,the chaos dread went bezerk & did its own thing, the Orks.... did all sorts of Orky things! What sort of damage was just inflicted on your vehicle? Etc.

New randomness? Is mostly just determining how many shots something fires, how much damage each shot does, or in some cases both. There's still a bit of effects randomness, but its just a fleeting nod to the past.

 Galas wrote:
Old editions had different rules, better rules, worse rules. But in general all the randomness that we have left behind has been for the better.


As flavor has been bleached out of the game during actual play I disagree.

 Galas wrote:
Like deep striking. A rule that was only used when people could negate the bad outcomes to a point were it was worth it. And thats the thing many people when they talk about old rules never mention. All those "Things were better! We took risks back then!" fall flat when you remember how people actually played them outside some ultra casual garage hammer enviroment.


Yes, too many of you are risk adverse in games. It's one thing if you just opt not to do the risky thing. That's fine, you don't have to deepstrike into incredibly risky ranges, etc. But when your playstyle is pandered to it robs everyone else of the option to take those risks.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 04:04:47


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Galas wrote:
...Like deep striking. A rule that was only used when people could negate the bad outcomes to a point were it was worth it. And thats the thing many people when they talk about old rules never mention. All those "Things were better! We took risks back then!" fall flat when you remember how people actually played them outside some ultra casual garage hammer enviroment.


I think it's swung way too far the other way in 8th/9th. Deep Striking has gone from "so risky it's not really worth it outside of a few niche edge cases" to "so reliable it's always worth using to guarantee your alpha strike units are invincible until they get to fire", and in neither case has there been any meaningful way to interact with the mechanic outside of filling the board up with bodies so there's nowhere to land. Sure, the technical features of the rules are different, but I don't think adding a perfectly optimal solution you always use adds to gameplay decision-making much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...1) This now becomes your ability to open up a hole for deepstrikers to arrive where you want them. You now play a risk at dropping into a terrible spot if your opponent has good backfield coverage and you fail to crack it...


Which in practice is extremely punishing to armies that can't cheaply fill space, and irrelevant when you consider the existence of Deep Strikers with longer-range weapons, who just get their invincible guaranteed alpha strike for no cost.

...2) Lots of detritus helps create an interesting battlefield to cross...


Which would be great if any terrain slowed anyone down at all, or if you didn't have armies consisting entirely of Move 16" units that are completely unaffected by terrain, or if you couldn't just use the aforementioned perfectly-reliable Deep Strike to skip walking.

...3) I don't necessarily disagree, but...

The old system was highly punishing to some armies and not others...


Eh. On one hand target priority's always felt better to me with a "get out" clause (ex. Mordheim's "if you're up a floor in a building you can shoot whoever you like"), but on the other hand every version of 40k's been punishing to some armies and not others. I think it's the desire to burn the game down and start over every few years that does it, they have to change enough to justify it being a new edition, which often makes them change things they didn't need to change.

...4) This now becomes a planning issue. Do you go for the average or wait in cover to get an extra move in to make sure you get a good charge?...


This one's been broken more by damage creep than the actual mechanics. Go back to, say, 4e, and if you wait in cover to get an extra move there's a chance you'll still be there to charge next turn. In current 40k if you park a melee unit close enough to the enemy to get shot (or charged itself) it'll never survive long enough to get to melee.

...5) Set turns gives you a way to plan turns. And with the second playing scoring at the end of the game the decision making becomes more complex on turn 4, because you need to know how you'll stop them before you get to turn 5...


I actually agree with you on this one, random game length was dumb. Sensible objective-based games that aren't built to run to time and then score tend to feature a sudden death VP state (hitting 16 points in Crisis Protocol, for example) rather than trying to take the worst of both worlds from end-of-turn scoring and end-of-game scoring.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 05:06:11


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Mezmorki wrote:

(1) Deep striking & scattering. Deep striking is, I feel, part of your strategic level play about how you use your forces to accomplish the mission objective. Where you place deep striking is critical. In older editions, the fact that deep striking units could scatter makes for more interesting decisions. Where you place a unit and how “risky” or aggressive you are in placing it was a serious consideration. If you got too greedy and scattered onto enemy forces, you could lose the whole unit! There was more nuance and “good ambiguity” in the placement.

Old deepstrike wasn't amazing. Having a random chance to straight up not be allowed to use a significant portion of your army (or to have them end up so far away that they couldn't contribute) wasn't exactly fun. My opponents and I never lost squads of terminators to DS mishaps and went, "Oh hey! What great game design! What an enjoyable experience!" At best, the person losing the squad would manage a hollow laugh while their opponent gave them a sympathetic grimace.

Plus, the risk/reward was kind of all over the place. My warp spiders had to start off dangerously close to their target in order to shoot with their 12" guns, and every inch of distance I put between them and their target added to the likelihood they'd scatter out of range entirely. My swoopins hawks, on the other hand, had relatively long-ranged weapons and could be much less risky. And then you had drop pods that just let you ignore 99% of the deepstrike risk entirely.

I think current deepstrike has a lot of room for improvement, but the old method was far from perfect.


(2) Difficult terrain & random move distances. Similar to the above. With movement in difficult terrain been variable, you can’t calculate with certainty how close you’ll be able to get, for example, to an objective or within range of an opponent. When you don’t move as far as you want, it an force you into a sub-optimal situation and can even prompt re-assessment of the overall “plan.”

Okay, but "re-assessment" usually just boiled down to, "Well, I guess I don't get to use that unit this turn. Guess you'll probably kill them on your turn because I couldn't get close enough to shoot/charge." Again, just because it was less reliable didn't mean it was more enjoyable. And it was especially punishing to slower, footslogging melee armies.


(3) Must shoot the closest enemy unit (from 4th edition). This added a level of tactical nuance and interplay between your units and their relative positioning. By forcing an opponent to shoot at a certain closer unit over another, added a level of decision making to your force movement.

I think there might be a way to ressurrect some version of this, but I haven't loved any of the suggestions I've seen for it. If you bring this back, you have to find a way for it to be enjoyable. You shouldn't be frustrated by it or find yourself ignoring options in your codex because your tactical marines' lascannon will never be allowed to shoot at the ideal target.


(4) Assaulting & random charge distances. This is a case of randomness that I actually don’t like that much, because on one hand, a very lucky roll (11 or 12” charge) can enable an assault unit to grossly outperform. Conversely, an unlucky roll can leave a unit stranded in the open. This is a case where core unit functionality is potentially undermined. Imagine if when you made a shooting attack you took 6” of the range of all weapons and then added a 2d6” instead. It’s a bridge too far IMHO.

Yeah, random charges embody a lot of the core problems with these other random mechanics. Basically, it's not fun to fail the charge, and you probably don't feel like you had much control over that unpleasant outcome when it happens. Needed a 3" charge and rolled snake eyes? That's probably not a tactical blunder; it's just randomness injecting frustration into your experience.


(5) Variable game length - this is a risk-reward element that ties into the overall strategic level of the game. It the forces the player to at the very least consider contingencies. If you press early on an objective, and the game goes long, can you hold it if it’s an exposed spot? If you wait to move, and it ends early, will you miss your chance? Is there a middle solution to hedge your bets? It injects a bit of a strategic gamble element to the later turns of the game.

Meh. Could take or leave variable game length. For squishy (read: non-marine) armies, this basically just created a chance for me to randomly lose the game at the last minute due to factors beyond my control. Like, I know that my scoring units are going to die the turn after they expose themselves to stand on an objective. Oldschool game length said that the game was most likely to end on turn 6 rather than turn 5 or 7. So I played the game around that assumption. If the game ended on turn 5, I lost because I played squishy space elves instead of chunky power armor dudes.

Also, with random mechanics in general, they tend to create a lot of extra dice rolling that frequently ended up either not mattering or mattering in a way that was more frustrating than fun. So speeding up the game and removing arbitrary frustration is a point in favor of using such mechanics sparingly.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 06:59:11


Post by: DarkHound


I agree with all the sentiments that the old randomness is best left behind. I think the point that extra randomness also drags the speed of the game down is important to echo. Randomly failing prerequisite events like moving through terrain or target priority suddenly means I have to re-evaluate my plan for the turn. This is not a good thing. I already did the planning for the turn and took my calculated risks. Hell, I planned for likely points of failure too. It's not only frustrating, it just takes a lot of time.

In current 40k, randomness is mostly limited to combat resolution and charge distances. You can plan for pretty much everything, and by the time catastrophic failures occur there isn't usually anything left to do about them until next turn. The 5-10 minutes spent at the start of the turn don't need to be redone. My turn is the sum of time spent executing the game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 07:13:13


Post by: Blackie


I think randomness should have an impact. I mean I would hate the game of averages as the best player and the best list would always win then. I like having some odds to win against a much better list, assuming both players are equally skilled. Can't do it if every result of the dice is near the average, and unfortunately with massive dice rolling and tools to enhance the results or get access to re-rolls it's way too easier to play the game of average or even above the average.

Things that were totally random like Flash Gitz's AP or the old SAG I'm glad they're gone though.

I missed the mishap on the deep strike instead, I've always hated that mechanic and I think deep strikers should take some risks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DarkHound wrote:

Randomly failing prerequisite events like moving through terrain or target priority suddenly means I have to re-evaluate my plan for the turn. This is not a good thing. I already did the planning for the turn and took my calculated risks. Hell, I planned for likely points of failure too. It's not only frustrating, it just takes a lot of time.



I disagree, that's a very good thing. Players should have plan B and C in mind.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 07:27:00


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Blackie wrote:

I missed the mishap on the deep strike instead, I've always hated that mechanic and I think deep strikers should take some risks.

Sure. What risks should they take, and how are those risks enjoyable when things don't go the way you hope? I'm all for risky deepstrikes, but those risks shouldn't boil down to, "Roll a d6 to see how annoying this rule is."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DarkHound wrote:

Randomly failing prerequisite events like moving through terrain or target priority suddenly means I have to re-evaluate my plan for the turn. This is not a good thing. I already did the planning for the turn and took my calculated risks. Hell, I planned for likely points of failure too. It's not only frustrating, it just takes a lot of time.



I disagree, that's a very good thing. Players should have plan B and C in mind.

Okay, but in the case of flubbing a difficult terrain roll, the rules didn't really support giving you the option to execute a plan B or C. If your footslogging unit rolled snake eyes on dt, they basically didn't get a movement phase. And if that meant they couldn't get in range to charge or shoot their guns, they were just sort of stuck there. You could Run in the shooting phase to scoot them around a couple inches, but that's not exactly a thrilling opportunity to exhibit tactical cunning.

And if your lascannon devastators fail their target priority test (to shoot at a unit of their choosing instead of the closest enemy unit), plan B is what? Put 100 points of lascannon fire into the cultists screening your preferred target?

Saying that players should be quick on their feet and able to adjust their battle plan on the fly sounds nice and all, but I'm not sure 40k really supports that at the moment. Randomly losing your movement phase to some craters doesn't create a lot of interesting decisions. It just makes me want to avoid playing with craters.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 07:41:03


Post by: Blackie


A) A unit killed for a failed deepstrike is enojying for the opponent! I'm not discussing how it should be implemented but deepstriking is a very powerful special ability and it should be risky, like overcharging plasmas for exmples.

B) Plan B is to have other units that put pressure if one squad failes the charge and alternatives to those devastators to deal with tanks/monsters of course, maybe something that can outmaneuver the screeners.

Putting all the eggs in the same basket (a single powerful ranged anti tank unit or a single unit of melee specialists) should be a gamble, not a reliable way of listbuilding. Game would be way more tactical is players are forced to consider plan B or C since nothing is guaranteed.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 07:54:52


Post by: DarkHound


 Blackie wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Randomly failing prerequisite events like moving through terrain or target priority suddenly means I have to re-evaluate my plan for the turn. This is not a good thing. I already did the planning for the turn and took my calculated risks. Hell, I planned for likely points of failure too. It's not only frustrating, it just takes a lot of time.
I disagree, that's a very good thing. Players should have plan B and C in mind.
You totally missed my point or you're being purposefully disingenuous. You can't plan for every result of every difficult terrain test. You also don't have infinite redundancy. It's a BAD thing if I spend 10 minutes making a plan for the turn, hit a 1/6 that bricks my movement (which I know will cascade into further failures), so I have to spend 10 minutes remeasuring and planning, only to hit another 1/36 to fail target priority at a critical point and have to spend 10 minutes recalculating my shooting phase. It makes the game take longer for no benefit. It feels bad to play and wastes both players' time.

I'm not even talking about events which render the game totally unworkable. That's a whole other issue. These kinds of tests create the possibility that you hit a 1/36 and lose the game through no fault of your own. Or even the extra turn randomness: as Wyldhunt said, plenty of armies, by design, had to dive objectives and lost if another turn was rolled. The whole game comes down to a 50/50 for some factions unless it's a significant mis-match in other areas, such as player skill.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 10:33:34


Post by: vipoid


To my mind, models should not need to roll dice to fulfil basic functions like moving (including Advancing and Charging). Other games have these as functions of a unit's movement (e.g. Charge = Movement x1.5, Run = Movement x2) and I honestly don't see why 40k needs to be different.

Similarly, units should not have to roll to see how many shots their guns actually fire. It's just a pointless waste of everyone's time.

To put it another way, randomness is generally used to resolve model v model interactions or else to force risk vs. reward decisions.

The old Deep Striking rules are an example of the latter in that they allowed a unit to arrive in an advantageous position with no opportunity for the enemy to shoot them first, but in exchange you couldn't guarantee which turn they'd arrive and there was additional risk if you placed them close to other models or terrain.

Now, as others have already said, it's fair to say that the old rules were too punishing (the risks involved in deep striking were often excessive, relative to the reward). However, the new rules have removed risk and randomness entirely - meaning it's more reliable to parachute down onto a battlefield than it is to merely walk through it at a slightly faster pace.

This is just one example but I think it illustrates a big part of the problem with the randomness in 8th and 9th, in that much of it seems entirely disconnected from valuable abilities - so that models are punished for trying to perform the most basic functions, but not for attempting risky manoeuvres.


Wyldhunt wrote:

Old deepstrike wasn't amazing. Having a random chance to straight up not be allowed to use a significant portion of your army (or to have them end up so far away that they couldn't contribute) wasn't exactly fun. My opponents and I never lost squads of terminators to DS mishaps and went, "Oh hey! What great game design! What an enjoyable experience!" At best, the person losing the squad would manage a hollow laugh while their opponent gave them a sympathetic grimace.


See, this is one of the things I would think Mortal Wounds would be well-suited for. You could use something similar to the old deep striking rules, except that if a deep striking unit lands in terrain or in enemy units it takes some Mortal Wounds and is shunted into the nearest unoccupied space, rather than being killed outright.


Wyldhunt wrote:

I think there might be a way to ressurrect some version of this, but I haven't loved any of the suggestions I've seen for it. If you bring this back, you have to find a way for it to be enjoyable. You shouldn't be frustrated by it or find yourself ignoring options in your codex because your tactical marines' lascannon will never be allowed to shoot at the ideal target.


Might it be better to do this as a form of cover rules (similar to how shooting through units in 5th granted the units behind them a 4+ cover save)?

So you can shoot at whatever you want but if you're shooting through other units then you'll incur a significant to-hit penalty or something. Probably with exceptions for Vehicles, Monsters and the like (which are usually too large to hide in this way).

It would help keep the options in the hands of the players and might also encourage more movement (to help get an angle past screening units).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 16:38:26


Post by: the_scotsman


I have an extremely difficult time seeing how increasing the amount of randomness in a game system increases the amount of decision-making that you as a player get to make.

I can see some types of randomness like deep strike scatter introducing a 'no plan survives contact with the enemy' element but the main problem is it was so massively cheapened by the fact that it included a 'your whole unit is instantly wiped out' and deep strike was perma-broken for like 60% of units that used it (melee units) for the entirety of third through 7th edition.

Other things, like damage tables that include results of 'your target instantaneously ker-splodes' and 'your unsaved wound does basially nothing' also definitely definitely do not increase decision-making.

thats not always a bad thing imo. Some of us want a more casual, goofy game experience where the rules are a system to 'see what happens' and not every game is a chess-style battle of wits where you have to execute a rigid battle strategy every game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 17:07:27


Post by: Strg Alt


My two cents about difficult terrain tests and deep striking:

Most of my 40K battles were played in 3rd with Cityfight rules at my friend's home. The ENTIRE board was filled with buildings (most intact and just a few ruins) so you had to make a LOT of difficult terrain tests with your infantry.

How did it all work out? Did I lose a battle because of a failed terrain test? Or did my opponent? No, not a single time.
Every time you get lucky there are also incidents where you fail.

Who managed to wreck the tank treads of his Land Raider on a bush? Yes, I did. My opponent did as well and it was a good reason to have a laugh at that ridiculous situation.

I had the habit for deepstriking my two NL Raptor squads on roof tops. Very often they landed perfectly and proceeded to wreck tanks moving in alleys below them with their special weapons in ONE turn. This was a VERY powerful ability and to make it even more reliable would have meant that the Raptors were too cheap compared to their offensive capabilities.

Later I played a mono Nurgle list in 5th. The WHOLE army arrived via dangerous deepstriking rules! If you don't like it, don't play the faction. Period.

So you might ask me now how often did my GUO fail the deepstrike? Once and as punishment the opponent was allowed to place him on the battlefield which meant he didn't contribute at all. But what about my Soul grinder in the same battle? He landed PERFECTLY at the board edge (balls of steel! ) and wiped the opponent from an objective with ease.

Sometimes you are lucky and sometimes not. It's a game with dice after all and to try and make each faction play the same sucks the joy out of it.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 17:07:29


Post by: amanita


I may have a narrower perspective on this, but I come from a group that has tweaked the rules since 5th to play our own rule set. I haven't played any edition since, but I still have some observations.

Random charge/assault distances. Makes little sense to me, unless the range is narrowed. Random movement in difficult terrain makes complete sense though. How sticky IS that mud? We roll 2 dice and choose the higher for each 6" increment of difficult terrain. If we call it very difficult, just roll 1 die. Sometimes we have extremely difficult terrain such as a swift river or razor wire and we roll 2D6 and use the lower result. Unknown variables like this should be in a wargame, whether it's a historical recreation or a sci-fantasy romp.

I've seen many say there is a great deal to becoming a good player in modern 40K. I don't doubt that, but it seems to have turned into more of a 3D collectible card game than a wargame, emphasizing auras, stratagems and other ways to boost the performance of units and relegating classic tactical maneuver to secondary status. That is completely viable if that is what someone wants in a game. It is absolutely not what I want in a war game.

Deep Strike was too punitive in the past, so we found the solution was to decrease the risk, not remove it entirely. I find it strange that an airborne or teleporting unit can land with absolute precision but must maintain an arbitrary distance from an enemy unit. Sure, it's an attempt to balance a game mechanic. It's just a bad attempt.

The removal of vehicle facings is a terrible idea. Some believe that too many arguments arose and it doesn't add enough to the game to bother with at the scale of models involved. Removal of facings because of this is like punishing everyone for the sins of outliers. This game is the perfect scale for facings to matter if you want actual tactics to have any relevancy when dealing with vehicles. Shooting at some hormagants dashing between buildings with your Russ's opposite side sponson while you clamber through trees is an abomination to any war gaming much less common sense.

The fact that GW made vehicles giant meat sacks indistinguishable from monsters was a poor move too. That at least could be mitigated somewhat if facings were still allowed with variant armor saves and so forth, but no. Sorry folks, vehicles don't act at all like animals. At all. GW said they are both large so they are the same. Duh. Again, if the game isn't concerned with any intuitive mechanics or realistic interactions and finds other ways to challenge the players, that is perfectly fine if that's your jam. No thank you. And please, spare me the railing against realism since the game has fungal hooligans, killer robots and magical space elves. That isn't and never was the point.

Having a breakdown on AP for close combat weapons may make sense but again, on the company-ish level scale that is 40K I find it unnecessary. We prefer power weapons vs not with a few wrinkles in between; no need to bog down the game in minutia.

Armor facings are not minutia.

TLDR - everyone needs to decide what is important to their own playing experience and go from there. Sometimes it depends on factors beyond their control, whether it be common opponents, financial or geographic constraints or whatever. It's up to each person to to make the game enjoyable enough for themselves or move on to something else. It is after all, just a game.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 17:15:22


Post by: Rihgu


Sorry folks, vehicles don't act at all like animals. At all.

I have a heldrake, a maulerfiend, and a venomcrawler that disagree!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 17:36:48


Post by: Galas


I have to say that right now the differences between starting the game in a transport, on foot, or in deep strike are quite balanced. Each option has his pros and cons, and normally it depends of your lists, how are you gonna play it, and what unit it is.

Look for example DG terminators, you see them both played in DS and on the table, and the same goes for many more units.

If someone believes that in 9th starting in DS is always the right choice they should play more 9th. In 8th it was always the right choice, of course, but that has been fixed. For me it took a couple games to readjust and I had a ton of games where I was thinking "I really should not had put those units in DS, I need them NOW and I can't even fit them on the table when I want them"


 the_scotsman wrote:


thats not always a bad thing imo. Some of us want a more casual, goofy game experience where the rules are a system to 'see what happens' and not every game is a chess-style battle of wits where you have to execute a rigid battle strategy every game.



This I agree with. One can admit that randomness makes for a worse "game" but it can make for a better experience. But you, as the game designer, need to know what experience you want to accomplish. And as players we need to acknowledgethan many people want completely opposite things from a game like 40k and the direction of it.

Personally, I would like my Warhammer more goofy and random. It can be that and still a much better game than what it has ever achieved to be.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 17:47:16


Post by: Strg Alt


Rihgu wrote:
Sorry folks, vehicles don't act at all like animals. At all.

I have a heldrake, a maulerfiend, and a venomcrawler that disagree!


DINOBOTS! MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 18:15:34


Post by: DarkHound


 Galas wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
thats not always a bad thing imo. Some of us want a more casual, goofy game experience where the rules are a system to 'see what happens' and not every game is a chess-style battle of wits where you have to execute a rigid battle strategy every game.
This I agree with. One can admit that randomness makes for a worse "game" but it can make for a better experience. But you, as the game designer, need to know what experience you want to accomplish. And as players we need to acknowledgethan many people want completely opposite things from a game like 40k and the direction of it.

Personally, I would like my Warhammer more goofy and random. It can be that and still a much better game than what it has ever achieved to be.
I think the narrative rules, particularly the campaign books and White Dwarf supplements, fit this perfectly. Set aside Crusade rules if you don't like them (though I think they're the best thing in 40k since Cities of Death), since you can play the campaigns without them. The campaigns introduce a variety of battlefield twists that occur either at the start of the game or progressively during it. I've had one similar 5e Dawn of War escalating deployment, where you split your army evenly into 3 parts to deploy one, while the second comes from reserves on your table edge on turn 1, and the last third on turn 2. Just last night we had a progressive one, where you roll 3d6 each turn and any doubles, triples, or result of 7 cause a bunch of penalties for the rest of the game. We hit -1 to saves, everybody loses ObSec, and you can't perform an action if you moved.

Beyond that, the missions themselves, particularly the Epic missions from the Charadon books, have really interesting bespoke rules. My favourite has been Rout on Okharium, where the defender deploys in the middle and is fleeing from the attacker through an artillery barrage.

Anyway, all of that is to say I think 40k is going in exactly the right direction. A tight, balanced core rule set benefits everyone, and the narrative players can add on their special effects and rules. Player choices and strategy have mattered the most in 9th edition. Then layering wacky events on top of that adds more depth, as it creates more challenges and puzzles (though not necessarily fair ones). Or, for more casual players, just more variety and surprises.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 18:40:03


Post by: catbarf


 DarkHound wrote:
You totally missed my point or you're being purposefully disingenuous. You can't plan for every result of every difficult terrain test. You also don't have infinite redundancy. It's a BAD thing if I spend 10 minutes making a plan for the turn, hit a 1/6 that bricks my movement (which I know will cascade into further failures), so I have to spend 10 minutes remeasuring and planning, only to hit another 1/36 to fail target priority at a critical point and have to spend 10 minutes recalculating my shooting phase. It makes the game take longer for no benefit. It feels bad to play and wastes both players' time.


All the combat mechanics in 40K are exactly the same way so this complaint makes no sense. You can just as easily flub a shooting attack that you expected to eliminate a key unit and then have to 'spend 10 minutes recalculating [your] shooting phase'. Would you prefer if combat was perfectly predictable too, or is this dislike for randomness just really selective?

In any case, most games nowadays are also moving away from this idea of being able to plan for 10 minutes, then mindlessly execute 30 minutes of gameplay with perfect coordination and no opportunity for the enemy to respond or for it to fail or in any way force you to adapt. It makes for dull gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on that note, I find 9th Ed really leans too hard in the direction of everything being driven by listbuilding, with the turn structure being a part of that.

The core design paradigm of very simple core rules, with complexity coming from the codices, means that the core rules offer less opportunity for tactics, and more of the decision space comes from the army composition. And if my army composition makes for a bad match-up, it's a real struggle.

So, I put together a list, I build a strategy around that list, my options on the board are based on stratagems and abilities derived from that list, and I basically just play the list as conceived. Optimizing units typically isn't that hard (no more tough decisions like whether to reposition a unit that can't move and shoot, or how aggressive to be with Deep Strike); it's more about checkboxes like screening out deep strike and looking for optimal matchups. And on any given turn, I'm basically figuring out how to do the most damage or score the most points this turn, and then I just do it.

I understand the subjective dislike for randomness- not everyone is looking for Clausewitzian friction. But the combination of list-based strategy and the IGOUGO pendulum swings means I've seen a bunch of games play out the same way, both players taking their 30 minute impulses to execute pre-arranged plans as best they can.

If people want to feel like they're fighting the opponent more than fighting the dice, I'd really like to see more interactivity, and more opportunity for reaction and counterplay.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 20:21:52


Post by: jeff white


Sustained fire dice… good.

D3 damage weapons? Less so.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 22:17:02


Post by: Wyldhunt


 catbarf wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
You totally missed my point or you're being purposefully disingenuous. You can't plan for every result of every difficult terrain test. You also don't have infinite redundancy. It's a BAD thing if I spend 10 minutes making a plan for the turn, hit a 1/6 that bricks my movement (which I know will cascade into further failures), so I have to spend 10 minutes remeasuring and planning, only to hit another 1/36 to fail target priority at a critical point and have to spend 10 minutes recalculating my shooting phase. It makes the game take longer for no benefit. It feels bad to play and wastes both players' time.


All the combat mechanics in 40K are exactly the same way so this complaint makes no sense. You can just as easily flub a shooting attack that you expected to eliminate a key unit and then have to 'spend 10 minutes recalculating [your] shooting phase'. Would you prefer if combat was perfectly predictable too, or is this dislike for randomness just really selective?

The difference is in what the randomness adds to the game. Having randomness in attack resolution makes it less obvious how your units clashing will pan out. Without it, I'd be able to look at your rhino and say, "Okay, I need exactly X dark reaper shots to kill that unit." And by extension, those who are good at mathing things out would be able to glance at two armies and pretty much figure out how the game is going to go at a glance. Thanks to random attack resolution, I can't estimate how many dark reapers I'll need to kill your rhino, but the dice might fail me thus leaving your rhino alive to score an objective or charge one of my shooting units thus changing the flow of the game. The randomness in attack resolution adds uncertainty in a way that makes the game more interesting. Plus, it lets the dice serve as arbiter in deciding whether my ninja space elves are badass enough to kill your power-armored transhuman rather than making that question a binary "yes" or "no." Thanks to randomness, sometimes my banshee will kill your vanguard vet, and sometimes your vanguard vet will kill my banshee.

Rolling snake eyes while trying to move out of a crater doesn't really do that. It adds uncertainty, sure. But not in a way that many of us find satisfying. Like, your space marines got stuck trying to walk up a pile of dirt. Why? What about this crater was so daunting that your superhuman space knights in Iron Man suits couldn't figure out how to walk out of it? And why were they suddenly able to do so without issue on your following turn? The randomness here detracts from the story rather than adding to it. Compare this to the current rules for difficult terrain that just says, "Yeah, you're going to move less quickly through difficult terrain, but you're not going to get stuck moving a single inch." So narratively, the randomness isn't doing us any favors.

And then mechanically, that flubbed difficult terrain roll basically translates to, "You're not allowed to use this unit this turn." It adds uncertainty, but it doesn't add interesting decisions or interesting story telling. In fact, it retroactively takes away decisions from your experience. You chose to move your unit out of the crater towards the enemy to bring their weapons into range? The difficult terrain roll means that you don't get to act on that decision. And, as you can imagine, this can be frustrating. Frustration isn't a thing you should be trying to add to your players' game experience.


I understand the subjective dislike for randomness- not everyone is looking for Clausewitzian friction. But the combination of list-based strategy and the IGOUGO pendulum swings means I've seen a bunch of games play out the same way, both players taking their 30 minute impulses to execute pre-arranged plans as best they can.

If people want to feel like they're fighting the opponent more than fighting the dice, I'd really like to see more interactivity, and more opportunity for reaction and counterplay.

This I can agree with. However, randomly failing a difficult terrain test (or losing a unit to deepstrike or failing a charge) doesn't really create more opportunity for reactions and counterplay. So I find your objective agreeable, but adding randomness for its own sake doesn't seem like the way to achieve that objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 amanita wrote:

Unknown variables like this should be in a wargame, whether it's a historical recreation or a sci-fantasy romp.

But why though? The italics on the word wargame make me think you're suggesting that the random stickyness of mud is self-evidently a good thing to represent mechanically. For me, just how sticky the mud is is on the list of things I could roll for but don't want to. I don't want to roll for each guardsman in my army to see if their stomach is disagreeing with them that day. I don't want to roll to see how many bullets in my stubber are duds. I don't want to roll to see how many of my guardsmen wear glasses and how many of them lost their glasses in the last fight. And I don't really feel like randomly determining mud viscosity every time I walk through it. Abstracting it to, "Hey, you move a couple inches slower through this terrain because it's some amount of sticky," is preferable.


The removal of vehicle facings is a terrible idea. Some believe that too many arguments arose and it doesn't add enough to the game to bother with at the scale of models involved. Removal of facings because of this is like punishing everyone for the sins of outliers. This game is the perfect scale for facings to matter if you want actual tactics to have any relevancy when dealing with vehicles. Shooting at some hormagants dashing between buildings with your Russ's opposite side sponson while you clamber through trees is an abomination to any war gaming much less common sense.

The fact that GW made vehicles giant meat sacks indistinguishable from monsters was a poor move too. That at least could be mitigated somewhat if facings were still allowed with variant armor saves and so forth, but no. Sorry folks, vehicles don't act at all like animals. At all. GW said they are both large so they are the same. Duh. Again, if the game isn't concerned with any intuitive mechanics or realistic interactions and finds other ways to challenge the players, that is perfectly fine if that's your jam. No thank you. And please, spare me the railing against realism since the game has fungal hooligans, killer robots and magical space elves. That isn't and never was the point.

I'm going to try to resist the urge to break down this portion as the removal of armour value isn't really inkeeping with the topic of random mechanics. But I disagree with pretty much everything you've mentioned here, and I'll happily defend my stance in a thread regarding that topic. XD


Having a breakdown on AP for close combat weapons may make sense but again, on the company-ish level scale that is 40K I find it unnecessary. We prefer power weapons vs not with a few wrinkles in between; no need to bog down the game in minutia.

Armor facings are not minutia.

"Deciding whether your bullet gets through the metal wrapped around my infantry unit on a 4+ vs a 5+ is unnecessary minutia. Now deciding whether your bullet gets through the metal wrapped around my vehicle on a 4+ or 5+, that's important!" ;D


TLDR - everyone needs to decide what is important to their own playing experience and go from there. Sometimes it depends on factors beyond their control, whether it be common opponents, financial or geographic constraints or whatever. It's up to each person to to make the game enjoyable enough for themselves or move on to something else. It is after all, just a game.

In all seriousness, I agree. And if you're having fun with your group's homebrew rules, more power to you. Happy gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Old deepstrike wasn't amazing. Having a random chance to straight up not be allowed to use a significant portion of your army (or to have them end up so far away that they couldn't contribute) wasn't exactly fun. My opponents and I never lost squads of terminators to DS mishaps and went, "Oh hey! What great game design! What an enjoyable experience!" At best, the person losing the squad would manage a hollow laugh while their opponent gave them a sympathetic grimace.


See, this is one of the things I would think Mortal Wounds would be well-suited for. You could use something similar to the old deep striking rules, except that if a deep striking unit lands in terrain or in enemy units it takes some Mortal Wounds and is shunted into the nearest unoccupied space, rather than being killed outright.

Sure. That seems like a good way to go. You could even tie the risk of mortal wounds to how close you land. So landing 12+" away from enemies results in no mortal wounds. Landing more than 9" means you roll 1d6 per model in the unit and take a MW on a 1. Landing more than 7" away means you take MW on a 1-2. Something like that.

I'd also be all for creating more interceptor/auspex scan type rules to the game. Like, if we were to move away from stratagems and towards guard-style orders, you could have an order to let a unit shoot at enemy units when they arrive from reserves. Something like that. So just how risky deepstriking is is based on how many resources your opponent wants to invest in guarding against deepstrike.


Wyldhunt wrote:

I think there might be a way to ressurrect some version of this, but I haven't loved any of the suggestions I've seen for it. If you bring this back, you have to find a way for it to be enjoyable. You shouldn't be frustrated by it or find yourself ignoring options in your codex because your tactical marines' lascannon will never be allowed to shoot at the ideal target.


Might it be better to do this as a form of cover rules (similar to how shooting through units in 5th granted the units behind them a 4+ cover save)?

So you can shoot at whatever you want but if you're shooting through other units then you'll incur a significant to-hit penalty or something. Probably with exceptions for Vehicles, Monsters and the like (which are usually too large to hide in this way).

It would help keep the options in the hands of the players and might also encourage more movement (to help get an angle past screening units).

Sounds good to me. Definitely something I'd be willing to try out.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 23:01:00


Post by: catbarf


Wyldhunt wrote:
Rolling snake eyes while trying to move out of a crater doesn't really do that. It adds uncertainty, sure. But not in a way that many of us find satisfying. Like, your space marines got stuck trying to walk up a pile of dirt. Why? What about this crater was so daunting that your superhuman space knights in Iron Man suits couldn't figure out how to walk out of it? And why were they suddenly able to do so without issue on your following turn? The randomness here detracts from the story rather than adding to it. Compare this to the current rules for difficult terrain that just says, "Yeah, you're going to move less quickly through difficult terrain, but you're not going to get stuck moving a single inch." So narratively, the randomness isn't doing us any favors.

And then mechanically, that flubbed difficult terrain roll basically translates to, "You're not allowed to use this unit this turn." It adds uncertainty, but it doesn't add interesting decisions or interesting story telling. In fact, it retroactively takes away decisions from your experience. You chose to move your unit out of the crater towards the enemy to bring their weapons into range? The difficult terrain roll means that you don't get to act on that decision. And, as you can imagine, this can be frustrating. Frustration isn't a thing you should be trying to add to your players' game experience.


From a narrative perspective, all I can say to the idea that a unit just getting bogged down in unknown terrain for no particular reason is somehow unrealistic is 'go read some AARs'. That kind of stuff happens all the time in warfare; from false contacts to immobilization to plain old friction. Sometimes troops just don't do what you expect them to, particularly in unfamiliar territory with short sight lines.

From a mechanical perspective, I don't see anything particularly unique about a difficult terrain roll compared to any other test with possibility of failure- your unit is just as worthless if you have it walk out of cover unimpeded, target the enemy, and whiff all your shots. That isn't adding interesting decisions or storytelling either (and I mean, if you can tell the story of how your squad somehow missed every shot, why not how they got spooked by a ghost contact on auspex?), and can be plenty frustrating too. Any mechanic with a chance for failure may inevitably be frustrating if you fail severely. That's just the nature of the beast as far as randomness is concerned; a game designer shouldn't be trying to coddle players by removing all chance of failure. As long as you have the choice to mitigate that randomness (avoid difficult terrain, don't DS close to the enemy, prioritize likely-successful shooting), assuming greater risk in the hopes of gaining an advantage is on you.

Like I said, I recognize that the sort of experience most 40K players are going for is a game, not a wargame, and they want their challenge to come solely from the opponent. That's why I think more opportunity for reaction and counterplay is a better approach for 40K as it currently stands than adding more chance for failure within an uncontested turn. But if you look at something like Epic or BFG, the possibility for a unit to fail to behave as you expected is a key part of the game, and removing those mechanics to avoid frustrating players with a low tolerance for risk would make those games worse. FWIW I'm not a huge fan of difficult terrain tests and am plenty fine with games that just have you halve movement in terrain; my point is more that if you take the 'frustration is bad' principle to its ultimate conclusion you get a deterministic and, IMO, very dull game.

(Also, not to put words in your mouth, but I usually see a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth over target priority tests or difficult terrain tests than I do over random advance distances and random charge rolls, despite the latter I find being by far the most impactful of any of these mechanics. And if you can't rationalize a unit getting bogged down in cover, what's the rationale when you roll a 2 on a 4" charge and sit there twiddling your thumbs?)


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/23 23:44:23


Post by: Daedalus81


There's a difference between terrain always bogging a tank down and sometimes bogging a tank down. Tanks are made to handle difficult terrain. Only in exceptional conditions or driver screw ups do they falter.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 00:19:23


Post by: solkan


The nicest version of the dangerous terrain test that I've seen so far is in Wyrd's The Other Side, because of a combination of factors.
Part 1: The dangerous terrain test is a random test (the game uses card flips for random tests)
Part 2: The other player performs the card flip, and gets to use any of their card flip manipulation rules that they want to use on it.
Part 3: For the most part, most of the time, you can avoid the random element by moving cautiously.

Which gets you the really nice result: Why did something terrible happen? Maybe it was bad luck, maybe the other side (or someone else) helped make that area more dangerous.

--

As a Chaos Demons player, if you told me "You can deep strike within 6" if you're willing to make a D6 roll for each model in your unit, for each 1 the unit suffers a mortal wound"... The troops are cheap enough that taking 14% bigger units won't be an issue, and there are enough multiple-wound units that won't care. Not to mention, all of the things with more than 10 wounds which would just laugh at "Roll a d6 to avoid losing a single wound".



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 00:21:11


Post by: Wyldhunt


 catbarf wrote:

From a narrative perspective, all I can say to the idea that a unit just getting bogged down in unknown terrain for no particular reason is somehow unrealistic is 'go read some AARs'. That kind of stuff happens all the time in warfare; from false contacts to immobilization to plain old friction. Sometimes troops just don't do what you expect them to, particularly in unfamiliar territory with short sight lines.

I'm not saying that no one ever gets stuck in a hole in war. I'm saying that super soldiers getting stuck in a waist-high hole seems pretty odd and doesn't contribute to my enjoyment of the game. Rules that give you a flat penalty to your Movement when walking through difficult terrain are preferable (to me) to difficult terrain tests because the former acknowledges the fantasy of fighting on movement-hindering terrain while the latter can basically prevent you from using your units. Like, if you're playing Star Craft, you probably don't want some of your selected units to randomly not do what you tell them to because it's realistic to have static on the coms or whatever.


From a mechanical perspective, I don't see anything particularly unique about a difficult terrain roll compared to any other test with possibility of failure- your unit is just as worthless if you have it walk out of cover unimpeded, target the enemy, and whiff all your shots. That isn't adding interesting decisions or storytelling either (and I mean, if you can tell the story of how your squad somehow missed every shot, why not how they got spooked by a ghost contact on auspex?), and can be plenty frustrating too. Any mechanic with a chance for failure may inevitably be frustrating if you fail severely. That's just the nature of the beast as far as randomness is concerned; a game designer shouldn't be trying to coddle players by removing all chance of failure. As long as you have the choice to mitigate that randomness (avoid difficult terrain, don't DS close to the enemy, prioritize likely-successful shooting), assuming greater risk in the hopes of gaining an advantage is on you.

The big difference here is that that a difficult terrain test, assuming it has the potential to matter at all, has between a 1/6th and 5/6th chance of screwing you over while shooting tends to involve rolling a lot more dice. If my guardian blob fires 40 shots and doesn't manage to inflict a single wound, it challenges my suspension of disbelief, but it's also extremely unlikely to happen. My chances of rolling snake eyes on a dt test are 1/36, and I might not even need to roll *that* badly to be prevented from using my unit for a turn.

Plus, see my point above about randomness in attack resolution creating uncertainty that is beneficial to the game. Knowing that my banshees might flub their attacks against your marines makes the game more interesting. My banshees not being allowed to attack your marines because mud is frustrating and anti-climactic and reduces the number of interesting decisions I get to make. There's also something to be said for the visceral feeling of getting to make an attack and having it fail (especially if it fails due to defenses my opponent has invested in) versus not being allowed to attempt that attack at all.

Flubbing a round of shooting is not the same as flubbing a difficult terrain test.


Like I said, I recognize that the sort of experience most 40K players are going for is a game, not a wargame, and they want their challenge to come solely from the opponent. That's why I think more opportunity for reaction and counterplay is a better approach for 40K as it currently stands than adding more chance for failure within an uncontested turn.

Agreed. Difficult terrain tests are a great example of a chance for failure that results in an uncontested turn.


But if you look at something like Epic or BFG, the possibility for a unit to fail to behave as you expected is a key part of the game, and removing those mechanics to avoid frustrating players with a low tolerance for risk would make those games worse. FWIW I'm not a huge fan of difficult terrain tests and am plenty fine with games that just have you halve movement in terrain; my point is more that if you take the 'frustration is bad' principle to its ultimate conclusion you get a deterministic and, IMO, very dull game.

If you take any sentiment to an extreme, you're likely to end up with a bad game. I'm saying that some of the specific examples being discussed in this thread add frustration to the game and don't add enough benefits to offset that downside. Difficult terrain tests and oldschool deepstrike weren't worth their downsides, basically.


(Also, not to put words in your mouth, but I usually see a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth over target priority tests or difficult terrain tests than I do over random advance distances and random charge rolls, despite the latter I find being by far the most impactful of any of these mechanics. And if you can't rationalize a unit getting bogged down in cover, what's the rationale when you roll a 2 on a 4" charge and sit there twiddling your thumbs?)

As I've said above, random charges are also a bad mechanic, and I'd be all for making advance distances a flat value rather than a random one. It's fairly rare for an advance roll to make or break a turn, but it's kind of lame when it does matter and you roll a 1. To me, this says that removing the randomness of advance rolls would probably be good game design.

EDIT: It's also maybe worth mentioning that a lot of terrain in 40k used to qualify as "difficult terrain." Ruins, trees, and craters, for instance. In my experience, those terrain features tend to make up a huge portion of the average gaming table's terrain, and utilizing them is pretty important for any army that relies on cover to survive. So when someone says, "Oh just avoid the difficult terrain then," we're probably not talking about avoiding the small patch of craters off to one side of no man's land; we're talking about avoiding most of the terrain on the table.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 06:59:39


Post by: Blackie


30 minutes to make a plan for the next turn, or even 10? I'm not sure we're playing the same game.

It takes me 0 seconds to do that, I'm thinking while rolling my saves and 40k isn't too deep. When it comes my turn I know exactly what to do even if I didn't thought about an actual "plan" during the enemy turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
One can admit that randomness makes for a worse "game" but it can make for a better experience.


This is exactly what I believe. Playing the game of averages isn't fun. I think randomness should be predominant in a dice based game (roughly my ideal concept of the game is based on 50% randomness, 30% list building, 20% decisions), it's the endless dice rolling that should be addressed, which annoys/bores the players and slows down the game, while it's in fact a tool to limit or even remove randomness.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 18:13:57


Post by: JNAProductions


See, I don’t think a full half of the games should be decided purely on dice.

If I play perfectly and my opponent plays like garbage, should they really still have a coin flip chance of winning?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 19:37:16


Post by: Daedalus81


I've still had plenty of "Warhammer moments" in 9th. Removing easy rerolls for characters was a good move.

Balancing randomness is key. Remember those crazy tables Daemons had to roll on in 7th? Or the mandatory rolls on the boon table when CSM killed a character? Those were great fun for the rare random wtf moments, but most people actively avoided them. Yay, I got +1BS on my BS7 character!

While turning a character into a spawn is fluffy it can be totally unfun for many players - competitively or otherwise.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 19:43:03


Post by: Rihgu


Speaking of turning a character into a spawn... the last 40k game I played, Abaddon killed Mortarion so I decided to spend the CP to roll on the boon table.

2 1s, no option to re-roll it. Abaddon was then a spawn. Worst part? I had no spawn model, or even a 50mm base to put down to represent one, so I didn't even get that.

Needless to say, I lost and learned never to use that stratagem again for any reason.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 19:56:27


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I've still had plenty of "Warhammer moments" in 9th. Removing easy rerolls for characters was a good move.

Balancing randomness is key. Remember those crazy tables Daemons had to roll on in 7th? Or the mandatory rolls on the boon table when CSM killed a character? Those were great fun for the rare random wtf moments, but most people actively avoided them. Yay, I got +1BS on my BS7 character!

While turning a character into a spawn is fluffy it can be totally unfun for many players - competitively or otherwise.


The Chaos Boon Table wasn't "fluffy" for every Legion. In the same codex they wrote this:

The Night Lords fight for the pleasure of the kill and for material gains, not because of the dictates of any deity - in fact, most of their number look down on the faithful as naive fools.


......they forced that garbage down our throats. More proof that the rules writers don't talk to the fluff writers enough.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/24 19:59:06


Post by: Tyel


Its a conflict at the end of the day.

I still occasionally play 8th edition WHFB with a friend of mine. He got me back into Fantasy in the early 2010s having been out of it for a while. I knew he wasn't competitive, he didn't follow the meta, or even just the general view of the game in general. So I built this mainly goblin army - which can be entirely *random* (there are things you can do to uplift it versus more competitive opponents, within the limitations of 8th). So in those games I can embrace the fact I'm rolling the dice and chaos will ensue. I'm not playing *to win*, so it doesn't matter if my army falls apart from animosity, stupidity, warmachines and wizards blowing up, fanatics running through my own units etc. The pretzels and beer are usually free flowing, its not serious. Its an entertaining way of using up a weekend afternoon.

But equally when I go to a tournament, and I'm aiming to play well, I don't want an army list - or a rules system - where it can all fall apart because I make a few bad rolls. I want to be able to reason out "okay I did X, could I have instead have done Y?" I want at least the illusion that my choices matter rather than it just being a function of throwing dice. If you play enough games there will inevitably be those where you massively underperform on shooting. But that's different I think to "oh you rolled a 1? that tank is immobilised". The thing about shooting is that one unit might be all 1s, but the next might be all 6s. By contrast these things people hate are usually discrete. For example a unit deep striking and being destroyed - or placed in a distant corner with no way to get back into the game - isn't really something you can plan for. You don't have a plan B in such circumstance, you are just much more likely to lose the game.

Fundamentally though I think its a clash. You play 50-100 games a year (or more), the fact some of those are blowouts for one side or the other based on random dice throws doesn't really matter. If you play 5-10 times a year (or less) and you get a couple like that, you may feel this is a stupid game, you are wasting your time and should play something else. Its the same I think for gotchas. Is it just a learning experience that you learn from and remember for next time, or has it ruined a once in 3 months experience and you are demotivated from trying again?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/25 11:09:31


Post by: Blackie


 JNAProductions wrote:
See, I don’t think a full half of the games should be decided purely on dice.

If I play perfectly and my opponent plays like garbage, should they really still have a coin flip chance of winning?


Well I think some extremely bad decisions from an unexperienced player can definitely have a massive impact on the game. But if both players are basically on the same level my ideal game would give actual decisions an impact of 20ish%, that's what I meant.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/25 12:49:56


Post by: Strg Alt


The only game from GW imo in which skill clearly outshines luck and list building is Blood Bowl. In BB I can make life difficult for my opponent just by positioning my models in a certain way. Most of the time I don't have to roll a single dice to achieve that.

However 40K never had such a mechanic in which outmaneuvering your opponent would leave him at a disadvantage. True, back in the day you could target side and rear armour of vehicles but infantry didn't care from which direction they were killed with the exception of Cityfights.

Problem is that 40K is a war game and in such your units are always threatened by opposing ranged units. A few good rolls and your soldiers are gone. BB offers security for your players which is to keep them not adjacent to the opponents. That way the opponent can only attack your players via a BLITZ or a foul.

It would need a MAJOR reinvention of 40K to offer your units a ton of passive boni, if you were able to outmaneuver your opponent to get the same sense of security BB offers for skillful playing. Maybe that and a much larger board and smaller forces to make maneuvering possible in the first place.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/25 20:21:23


Post by: DarkHound


 Strg Alt wrote:
The only game from GW imo in which skill clearly outshines luck and list building is Blood Bowl. In BB I can make life difficult for my opponent just by positioning my models in a certain way. Most of the time I don't have to roll a single dice to achieve that.

However 40K never had such a mechanic in which outmaneuvering your opponent would leave him at a disadvantage. True, back in the day you could target side and rear armour of vehicles but infantry didn't care from which direction they were killed with the exception of Cityfights.

Problem is that 40K is a war game and in such your units are always threatened by opposing ranged units. A few good rolls and your soldiers are gone. BB offers security for your players which is to keep them not adjacent to the opponents. That way the opponent can only attack your players via a BLITZ or a foul.

It would need a MAJOR reinvention of 40K to offer your units a ton of passive boni, if you were able to outmaneuver your opponent to get the same sense of security BB offers for skillful playing. Maybe that and a much larger board and smaller forces to make maneuvering possible in the first place.
While it's true there are very few statistical bonuses for maneuvering, your characterization of 40k is entirely wrong. At a higher skill level, out maneuvering your opponent is how games are won. Your units are not always threatened by enemy shooting, because there should be prevalent Obscuring terrain. In fact, in practice the opposite is often true: a strong melee unit is hidden and projects a charge threat radius the opponent has to avoid.

Another simple example is that you can physically block the opponent's movement, because they can't retaliate until after the Movement phase. This is a core strategy for several armies, like Harlequins and Dark Eldar. A couple fast, cheap sacrificial units prevent the enemy's movement for a turn and force them to fall behind on scoring. Plus there's always other examples of important movement like bubble wrapping against charges, or spreading out to deny Deepstrikes or reserves.

In 9th edition, how you position your models relative to your opponent and the objectives is what decides games. Just watch some high level battle reports from teams like Vanguard Tactics or Art of War 40k. You'll very quickly see how much thought and effort goes into maneuvering.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/25 20:44:43


Post by: Strg Alt


@Dark:
We are not talking about the same game at all. "Bubble wrapping" is a feature of one of the newest edition of 40K with all the alpha strike nonsense. It's more of a gimmick to exploit the loop holes of the game than a sound tactic.

Regardless of obstructing terrain you will still always have firing lanes which pose dangers. So you can't control the environment as much as in Blood Bowl that's why skill takes a backseat as opposed to luck.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/25 21:39:45


Post by: DarkHound


Bubble wrapping has always been in the game. It just means you put a sacrificial unit in front an important one to intercept an opponent's charge. It's literally an ancient, real life strategy. That's not a game exploit.

There is a vast logical gulf between "the enemy can shoot" and "therefore, luck outshines skill" which you need to fill. You can absolutely "control the environment" if you throw two jetbike squads to block an army's movement to the objectives.

Oh, you know what? Now I understand. Out of curiosity I looked at your battle reports. You meant it, you really are not playing the same game as me. You play on an open field with just a few hills. No wonder you feel like you're always vulnerable to shooting. Your board would have been great in older editions, but 9th requires so much more terrain.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 03:44:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 05:59:07


Post by: Racerguy180


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.


Which is sad.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 06:59:20


Post by: vict0988


Back in 6th the battlefields I played on were often set up so that my Monoliths had to take dangerous terrain tests to get places, the tactical choice I had to make was whether to stay still or to move and maybe get stuck. So when I did get stuck in dangerous terrain, it wasn't like I often had much of an alternative. I really like Wyldhunt's posts about the thematic element, to me the times my Monolith got stuck were game-breaking in how much they sucked on a thematic level, it happened so much that it became a running gag so it wasn't terrible for gameplay, because I expected it to happen and was able to laugh it off.
 Blackie wrote:
A) A unit killed for a failed deepstrike is enojying for the opponent!

In the same way a failed charge roll is? Both these events can be enjoyable, but if you're ahead and your opponent cannot make a charge roll to save a life or their deep strikes go against them, then it's not fun. Random charge length is also necessary when you have pre-measuring allowed, otherwise, the game just turns into chess as people line up 0,1" out of charge range instead of getting as far away as possible to minimize the chance of getting charged.
 vipoid wrote:
Now, as others have already said, it's fair to say that the old rules were too punishing (the risks involved in deep striking were often excessive, relative to the reward). However, the new rules have removed risk and randomness entirely - meaning it's more reliable to parachute down onto a battlefield than it is to merely walk through it at a slightly faster pace.

Paratroopers that paid for parachutes actually getting to do a parachute drop? The horror. The opportunity cost was paid during list building when I chose to take paratroopers instead of basic infantry.
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.

BB is all about position and manoeuvre, I don't get how you could get a game more about that than BB, it's a part of every instance of the game, from movement, to passing, to combat, it matters where your dudes are in relation to each other and in relation to your opponent's dudes and manoeuvring is risky business in BB so you have to judge which risks are worth taking to get into position and which risks to take first. Do you want to be unable to Advance while near enemy units, a penalty to melee when near several enemy units, a penalty to hit enemies near allies or behind other enemy units, to automatically fail charges against enemies on higher ground, a chance of failing to climb to higher ground? Those wouldn't be bad things, it might be an interesting game mode at least, but even with those additional rules BB would still be the position and manoeuvre game. Do you dislike BB? I think it's a pretty great game, the only thing I don't like is the turnover mechanic when you forget things, but the video game handles that. I often regret not having the game permanently installed on my hard drive.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 09:16:12


Post by: Strg Alt


 DarkHound wrote:
Bubble wrapping has always been in the game. It just means you put a sacrificial unit in front an important one to intercept an opponent's charge. It's literally an ancient, real life strategy. That's not a game exploit.

There is a vast logical gulf between "the enemy can shoot" and "therefore, luck outshines skill" which you need to fill. You can absolutely "control the environment" if you throw two jetbike squads to block an army's movement to the objectives.

Oh, you know what? Now I understand. Out of curiosity I looked at your battle reports. You meant it, you really are not playing the same game as me. You play on an open field with just a few hills. No wonder you feel like you're always vulnerable to shooting. Your board would have been great in older editions, but 9th requires so much more terrain.


Those battle reports of mine have used abstract area terrain rules. Not true LOS. HUGE difference! And yes, I am playing older editions of 40K (custom 2nd and custom 3rd-6th).

Good luck using your "Bubble wrapping" with SM, Eldar and CSM armies who don't use cultists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.


Yes, and it needs to change.

Sadly the Pokémon generation of 40K want "Gotcha" cards in the form of stratagem and aura abilities. It's going to get even worse in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Vict:
I am going to read the last version of the Epic rules. I have them printed out somewhere. Those rules included stuff like units being at a disadvantage simply by being shot at (no hits or casualties needed), other friendly units in the area lending support (like an assist in Blood Bowl) and crossfire zones.

Maybe it is worthwhile to incorporate some of them in my future battle reports.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 11:41:26


Post by: Mezmorki


What game is BB?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 11:55:02


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Lots of hate for randomness in this thread, which is a pity.

Randomness is the linchpin of games that try to reflect some semblance of the warfight both above (missions and sometimes allocated support to the player) and below (unit behaviors) the level the player is commanding at.

Understanding the abstraction of randomness, perhaps, is the problem here. A tank getting stuck on a difficult terrain isn't LITERALLY permanently stuck. It just requires some time and care taken with an unditching beam, which is an operation you don't perform within yards of the enemy.

Infantry moving slowly through terrain aren't moving slowly because they are LITERALLY stuck. It can be a combination of the actual difficulty of the terrain, a command-and-control issue as the sergeant loses LOS of each member of the squad (maybe they were advancing based on hand signals?), concern for running across the enemy unexpectedly in constrained sightlines... there are many many reasons to slow down in a dense forest rather than an asphalt road if you have ever run though them in real life, NOT TO MENTION there's an enemy in 40k and usually not in real life.

Heck, I can continue to explain abstractions but it is interesting that people hate randomness so much, given how important it is to other wargames that are trying to reflect reality.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 13:12:08


Post by: Tyel


 Mezmorki wrote:
What game is BB?


Blood Bowl.

Its an odd thing - because yes, where you place your guys impacts the probability of your and your opponents actions and learning that is clearly a skill.

But its also a game famous for toe-curlingly excruciating swings of luck. If the dice decide you are going to roll 2 ones (or skulls) in a row that's it for a turn, while your opponent may chain 5s and 6s so ignore all that careful positioning you engaged in. There's nothing you can do about it, Nuffle's just gone "nah".

Competitive 40k is all about manoeuvre and positioning your models. List building and faction choice undoubtedly matters - but that's just a given. If you were for some reason playing Blood Bowl as a succession of one-off games (or perhaps vaguely seriously in any format) you wouldn't choose to bring Halflings.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 17:46:23


Post by: Strg Alt


Competitive 40K in a nutshell:

Spam the current broken unit due to a profit driven sales concept. In the past those were for example Riptides and Hellturkeys.

Or exploit badly worded basic rules like in 5th Ork Biker Nobz with wound allocation shenanigans.

In BB the Living Rulebook was written by fans and the game itself kept alive by the community. 40K needs such a treatment too because of current dumpster fire rules.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:03:56


Post by: Daedalus81


 Strg Alt wrote:
Competitive 40K in a nutshell:

Spam the current broken unit due to a profit driven sales concept. In the past those were for example Riptides and Hellturkeys.

Or exploit badly worded basic rules like in 5th Ork Biker Nobz with wound allocation shenanigans.

In BB the Living Rulebook was written by fans and the game itself kept alive by the community. 40K needs such a treatment too because of current dumpster fire rules.



We're well beyond the 5th/6th/7th edition dynamics. The only army taking the max of a unit right now is basically Orks. Admech sometimes takes a lot of infantry, but never maxes out and never maxes chickens. DE "spam" raiders, because that's how their army gets around.

Here's a 2nd place SW list:

Chaplain on Bike
5 Assault Intercessors
Wulfen Dread
2 Cyberwolves

Librarian
2 Redemptors
Relic Contemptor
3x5 Wolf Guard
5 TWC
4 TWC

And here's a 3rd place DA list:

Azrael
Talonmaster
2x2 DW Command
10 DW Terminators
Apothecary
Champion

Talonmaster
3 Suppressors
3 Eradicators
5 Hellblasters
TFC


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:11:52


Post by: Wyldhunt


Unit1126PLL wrote:
Heck, I can continue to explain abstractions but it is interesting that people hate randomness so much, given how important it is to other wargames that are trying to reflect reality.

Oh I absolutely understand the concept of abstraction. I bring it up on this forum all the time. But having my land raider get stuck on a bush is a frustrating experience even if I come up with a great in-universe explanation for how it happened. Games are a series of interesting decisions. Having your unit move basically 0" because of terrain means that the number of interesting decisions I get to make is reduced. I wanted to make the decision to leave the crater, round the corner, and bring my short-ranged firepower to bear at the cost of leaving my unit exposed to return fire on the following turn; but a difficult terrain roll took that decision away from me. And not only did it take that decision away, but it also took my ability to shoot or charge with that unit away creating the feeling that I'm not actually getting to play with my toys.

Basically, having units rendered inactive or removed from the game by random rolls (rather than by my opponent's own choices and actions) removes my sense of agency. And that's on top of diminishing the power fantasy behind my supposedly badass units. Like, having assault marines splatter themselves across some ruins when they deepstrike in because I rolled badly on scatter and the deepstrike mishap chart doesn't really forge the sort of narrative that was advertised. It just seems goofy and out of character. And if I was already losing the game, or if that unit dying on arrival is what causes me to lose the game, then it's just a frustrating turn of events. Deepstriking that squad may have been the objectively correct tactical decision, but the randomness of the deepstrike mechanics basically punished me for attempting it.

Also, I'd argue that 40k should prioritize power fantasy considerations over "reflecting reality." I know that some amount of realism keeps things grounded, but needing to call roadside assistance for my science tank might not be the best place to inject it.


Strg Alt wrote:Competitive 40K in a nutshell:

Spam the current broken unit due to a profit driven sales concept. In the past those were for example Riptides and Hellturkeys.

Or exploit badly worded basic rules like in 5th Ork Biker Nobz with wound allocation shenanigans.

Is that even accurate for competitive 40k these days. I've been out of the loop on competitive stuff for a while now, but last I heard, unit spamming wasn't all that common among competitive lists. I was under the impression that you actually wanted a fairly diverse list because competitive games are won on the backs of stratagems, and you can only use a given stratagem once per phase. So you're encouraged to take a blob unit that can benefit from your infantry-specific force multiplier strat, and you want to take one or two (but not three) of unit X so that you can use the "shoot twice with unit X" stratagem each turn, and you want to have a deepstriking melee unit that can use your "roll 3d6 when you charge" stratagem, but you don't want a second such unit because then it would just be stuck trying for a 9" charge on 2d6.

And I was under the impression that 9th edition's very wordy rules writing had removed a lot of the "badly worded" rules ambiguity. What's the 9th edition equivalent of the 5th edition phenomenon you've described?



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:13:10


Post by: DarkHound


In this thread: people who don't play 9th, let alone play tournaments, make conjecture about the state of the game and influence of competitive play.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:14:44


Post by: PenitentJake


Racerguy180 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.


Which is sad.


No it's not. It's perfectly logical- a game that has no ranged attacks obviously is going to be more concerned about position than one that does.

Quite frankly, the two games shouldn't even be compared. Anything that works in a melee only game is going to have little relevance for a game where even dedicated CC units have the capacity to fire at range.

And let's not even talk about the psychic phase.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:25:06


Post by: Daedalus81


Wyldhunt wrote:
Is that even accurate for competitive 40k these days. I've been out of the loop on competitive stuff for a while now, but last I heard, unit spamming wasn't all that common among competitive lists. I was under the impression that you actually wanted a fairly diverse list because competitive games are won on the backs of stratagems, and you can only use a given stratagem once per phase.


No, we don't typically try to take units based around stratagems. We take units for a purpose. Sub factions can encourage certain units either through strats or other rules.

You need to be able to hold objectives, do actions, and remove enemy models. Those actions will probably require crossing the board, which means considering deepstrike or some other form of increased mobility.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:39:23


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Is that even accurate for competitive 40k these days. I've been out of the loop on competitive stuff for a while now, but last I heard, unit spamming wasn't all that common among competitive lists. I was under the impression that you actually wanted a fairly diverse list because competitive games are won on the backs of stratagems, and you can only use a given stratagem once per phase.


No, we don't typically try to take units based around stratagems. We take units for a purpose. Sub factions can encourage certain units either through strats or other rules.

You need to be able to hold objectives, do actions, and remove enemy models. Those actions will probably require crossing the board, which means considering deepstrike or some other form of increased mobility.

Right, but stratagems (and psychic powers which are also limited to once per turn) tend to be important for fulfilling those purposes, right? Like, this is possibly a bad example because tyranids aren't doing so great right now, but my buddy talks about he always wants a unit of hiveguard and an exocrine so he can use a "shoot more better" stratagem on each of them each turn. Sometimes he wants an additional exocrine in case the first one dies, but he never wants a third exocrine because he's too likely to spend much of the game *not* using the exocrine strat on that third exocrine.

Basically, my understanding is that you want to fulfill those purposes with the optimal unit for the job, and the optimal unit often requires a strat, spell, relic, etc. to be optimal. And a different unit using a different strat/spell/etc. is often more optimal than a second instance of the first unit without its key strat/spell/etc. So you're less likely to spam "the best" unit and more likely to take a variety of units that are collectively the best overall set of options. Or put another way, you're not spamming three hiveguard squads; you're taking one hiveguard squad, one exocrine, and then whatever the most optimal choice after that is.

But as I said, I'm not really in the loop in regards to competitive lists right now. Maybe I'm full of grox dung.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:45:54


Post by: DarkHound


Tyranids are a bit of an odd example because their strength is really tied up in just those couple units.

The thing is, particularly in 9th edition codexes, the internal balance of the codex is really good, so "most optimal choice after that" is a really thin margin based more on your preferred strategies. No top scoring lists are identical. Seriously, there have never been two tournament winning lists with the same mix, except by the same player. Even then, a winning player will tweak their list based on the terrain of the upcoming tournament and the expected field of armies.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 18:55:39


Post by: Wyldhunt


 DarkHound wrote:
Tyranids are a bit of an odd example because their strength is really tied up in just those couple units.

The thing is, particularly in 9th edition codexes, the internal balance of the codex is really good, so "most optimal choice after that" is a really thin margin based more on your preferred strategies. No top scoring lists are identical. Seriously, there have never been two tournament winning lists with the same mix, except by the same player. Even then, a winning player will tweak their list based on the terrain of the upcoming tournament and the expected field of armies.

Fair enough. In that case, it still sounds like the assertion that competitive armies are just spamming their strongest units over and over isn't really accurate. If no top scoring lists are identical, that makes me think we're seeing a fair bit of unit diversity.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 19:13:08


Post by: DarkHound


That's true, with the exception that Dark Eldar and AdMech are rocking about 70% winrates and top almost all events. Now, those winrates are carried by particular combinations of sub-factions and a few abnormally strong units. No list is identical, but the tippy-top of those two factions are 2/3s the same. That last third is a rotating gallery of the rest of the book, depending on which particular secondaries you want to score.

Other, more reasonable, 9e books also tend toward a couple sub-factions, which inform their unit choices, but there's a much wider variety with them because their choices aren't being overshadowed.

The meta is complicated and nuanced. Which is my earlier point: almost all the arguments about competitive that come up in General Discussion are completely divorced from the reality of the game. It's more effort than it's worth to untangle them, and mostly people don't want a good faith discussion anyway.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 21:28:17


Post by: jeff white


This sort of meta competitive stuff seems exactly what the OP felt is not so interesting about some forms of 40k… nothing tactical, strategic, or optimal unless optimisation is about win rates rather than fun. The OP seems to be asking about optimising for interesting and fun, not a table top exercise testing if one has solved the game with pre game list building commission painted for a big event. Not interesting, either, imho


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 22:14:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 jeff white wrote:
This sort of meta competitive stuff seems exactly what the OP felt is not so interesting about some forms of 40k… nothing tactical, strategic, or optimal unless optimisation is about win rates rather than fun. The OP seems to be asking about optimising for interesting and fun, not a table top exercise testing if one has solved the game with pre game list building commission painted for a big event. Not interesting, either, imho


It feels like you're processing what was said through your own lens to pre-determined your own conclusion. Not much else can be said that can be conveyed without experience.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 22:33:03


Post by: DarkHound


Yeah, I don't know where to begin with Jeff's post. He's presuming a conclusion.

Yes, most games can be broken down into optimization puzzles. Optimization is, by definition, maximizing success rates. That's necessary to playing an adversarial competitive game: you're trying to win more than your opponent. The OP was talking about obscuring the optimization puzzle by adding more randomness to make the calculations impossible. I'd argue this removes gameplay depth: by making the optimization puzzle impossible, you actually remove player agency and depth because they can't make informed choices. It doesn't matter what they choose if anything can happen from any choice. As soon as you say "but they should make this choice because then this outcome is more likely" then you're back to a solvable optimization puzzle.

Ultimately both Jeff's post and the OP are a solution looking for a problem. You presume 40k is not tactically or strategically deep, but it is. 40k is not a solved puzzle. Pre-game list building is important, but it is not solved, evidenced by the fact that even the overpowered armies do not have a consensus build.

I suppose actually I disagree with the OP's first sentence and the entire premise of the thread. I applaud them for defining terms, and I agree with their definitions, but I know those complex decisions are already present in the game. If the game doesn't feel deep because you always know what the right decision is, you should go run rampant through the GTs.

Anyone actually paying attention to the GT meta or playing in tournaments and leagues knows that playing the game well is hard. It's very difficult to make the right decisions. That's what's interesting about the game. That's what depth means.

If the depth of the game isn't interesting to you, that's okay. There's plenty of other content where the gameplay depth is not the main attraction, such as narrative campaigns. Crusade is my primary game mode, I love it. But then you shouldn't come into a discussion about gameplay depth.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 22:53:11


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 vict0988 wrote:
BB is all about position and manoeuvre, I don't get how you could get a game more about that than BB, it's a part of every instance of the game, from movement, to passing, to combat, it matters where your dudes are in relation to each other and in relation to your opponent's dudes and manoeuvring is risky business in BB so you have to judge which risks are worth taking to get into position and which risks to take first... Do you dislike BB? I think it's a pretty great game, the only thing I don't like is the turnover mechanic when you forget things, but the video game handles that. I often regret not having the game permanently installed on my hard drive.
Umm... I said that position and manoeuvre matters in BB. I'm not sure why you felt the need to launch into an argument that basically agrees with that.

 vict0988 wrote:
Do you want to be unable to Advance while near enemy units, a penalty to melee when near several enemy units, a penalty to hit enemies near allies or behind other enemy units, to automatically fail charges against enemies on higher ground, a chance of failing to climb to higher ground? Those wouldn't be bad things, it might be an interesting game mode at least, but even with those additional rules BB would still be the position and manoeuvre game.
Yeah, I more meant that position and manoeuvre actually don't matter all that much in 40k. I'm not suggesting that some grand adaptation of 'tackle zones' for 40k would be a resolution. My post even had a link to what I'm talking about - the way cover and LOS interact (or don't) and the way that vehicles in 8th/9th aren't really vehicles anymore.

PenitentJake wrote:
No it's not. It's perfectly logical- a game that has no ranged attacks obviously is going to be more concerned about position than one that does.
So it's perfectly logical that this Hive Tyrant is completely out of LOS, but this Hive Tyrant is fair game for all shooting?

This is what I mean by position and manoeuvre, and how little it matters in 40k. It is sad.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 23:02:48


Post by: PenitentJake


If auras are one of the most frequent complaints about 9th, and auras have a range from characters that grant them, and if the number of characters that grant them have been limited...

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 23:09:53


Post by: vipoid


PenitentJake wrote:
If auras are one of the most frequent complaints about 9th, and auras have a range from characters that grant them, and if the number of characters that grant them have been limited...

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?



Sorry, I'm not understanding your chain of reasoning here.

You give it in full and yet I'm still baffled as to how a general dislike of auras means that positioning matters in 9th.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 23:10:31


Post by: DarkHound


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, I more meant that position and manoeuvre actually don't matter all that much in 40k. I'm not suggesting that some grand adaptation of 'tackle zones' for 40k would be a resolution. My post even had a link to what I'm talking about - the way cover and LOS interact (or don't) and the way that vehicles in 8th/9th aren't really vehicles anymore.
PenitentJake wrote:
No it's not. It's perfectly logical- a game that has no ranged attacks obviously is going to be more concerned about position than one that does.
So it's perfectly logical that this Hive Tyrant is completely out of LOS, but this Hive Tyrant is fair game for all shooting?

This is what I mean by position and manoeuvre, and how little it matters in 40k. It is sad.
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.

Saying "position and maneuvering don't matter in 40k" is exactly what I meant by bad faith arguments that don't reflect the game.
 vipoid wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
If auras are one of the most frequent complaints about 9th, and auras have a range from characters that grant them, and if the number of characters that grant them have been limited...

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?
Sorry, I'm not understanding your chain of reasoning here.

You give it in full and yet I'm still baffled as to how a general dislike of auras means that positioning matters in 9th.
His point was that people acknowledge that auras require positioning, auras give a significant advantage (that some dislike), therefore positioning is important for gaining advantages.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 23:17:33


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Wyldhunt wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Heck, I can continue to explain abstractions but it is interesting that people hate randomness so much, given how important it is to other wargames that are trying to reflect reality.

Oh I absolutely understand the concept of abstraction. I bring it up on this forum all the time. But having my land raider get stuck on a bush is a frustrating experience even if I come up with a great in-universe explanation for how it happened. Games are a series of interesting decisions. Having your unit move basically 0" because of terrain means that the number of interesting decisions I get to make is reduced. I wanted to make the decision to leave the crater, round the corner, and bring my short-ranged firepower to bear at the cost of leaving my unit exposed to return fire on the following turn; but a difficult terrain roll took that decision away from me. And not only did it take that decision away, but it also took my ability to shoot or charge with that unit away creating the feeling that I'm not actually getting to play with my toys.

Basically, having units rendered inactive or removed from the game by random rolls (rather than by my opponent's own choices and actions) removes my sense of agency. And that's on top of diminishing the power fantasy behind my supposedly badass units. Like, having assault marines splatter themselves across some ruins when they deepstrike in because I rolled badly on scatter and the deepstrike mishap chart doesn't really forge the sort of narrative that was advertised. It just seems goofy and out of character. And if I was already losing the game, or if that unit dying on arrival is what causes me to lose the game, then it's just a frustrating turn of events. Deepstriking that squad may have been the objectively correct tactical decision, but the randomness of the deepstrike mechanics basically punished me for attempting it.

Also, I'd argue that 40k should prioritize power fantasy considerations over "reflecting reality." I know that some amount of realism keeps things grounded, but needing to call roadside assistance for my science tank might not be the best place to inject it.


But like, everything you listed there is a decision.
Land Raider immobilized on difficult terrain? You made a call to run over that difficult terrain, presumably to get there more quickly than if you had gone around. Risk vs reward, maybe a more careful player would have paid for Dozer Blades/Rough Terrain Modifications (costing points) or gone around (costing speed).

Your guys moved slowly? You chose to take that route.

Scattered into deadly terrain? You chose a dangerous deep strike location, taking a risk for taking a reward.

Each of those has risks that can be estimated ("what are the chances I will roll a one? / What are the chances I roll less than a 4 on 2d6 picking the highest? / How close am I to impassable terrain, the board edge, or enemy units when I deep strike?"). Those risks can be weighed against the rewards ("I get my terminators to disembark for an assault this turn instead of next turn / my short range guns can move into range while remaining in cover / I am better positioned for an assault next turn on a critical unit or location"). What's more, the risk/reward calculation varies from game-to-game, so the decisions are very different ("this game my Terminators are going to assault something valuable and dangerous to their ride so they REALLY NEED to get in NOW! / my short range guns need cover because the enemy has lots of low-AP shooting / my Assault Marines need to jump over the enemy screen unit to get to the objective").

Those random rolls are *caused* by decisions and their risk factors (or should factor) into the decisions players make.

It is no different than using the Desperate Breakout stratagem on a trapped tank and then rolling a 1. Sorry buddy, you knew the risks when you did the action, and they didn't pay off.

It was still a choice the player made, having weighed the risks and rewards.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 23:29:28


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 DarkHound wrote:
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.
Obscuring is through or over. That first HT is neither. It is visible and a valid target for shooting. The second one is not, as you would have to draw LOS over the terrain.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Land Raider immobilized on difficult terrain? You made a call to run over that difficult terrain, presumably to get there more quickly than if you had gone around. Risk vs reward, maybe a more careful player would have paid for Dozer Blades/Rough Terrain Modifications (costing points) or gone around (costing speed).
You're arguing past one another.

The issue isn't the Land Raider immobilising itself on difficult terrain. The issue is the threshold of what constitutes "difficult terrain" in the first place. What is difficult for infantry isn't necessarily difficult for a tracked vehicle.

Take this standard GW crater for example:



... at one point or another this terrain feature was "difficult terrain", and I've had games where I've had to make immobilisation checks because a went over the edge or lip of the crater slightly. It doesn't make sense. It's not a "risk vs reward" thing, it's something that jars are sense of realism because I've driven over bumps bigger than that in my car, at speed, and I didn't lose a wheel or break my axle.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 23:34:42


Post by: DarkHound


Unit1126PL, I'd say Wyldhunt's most pertinent point is the last sentence. You're right that those are still calculated risks, but the game can choose to represent almost anything as a risk. There absolutely should be risks. The question is: what is worth representing?

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.

Randomness in models attacking each other is great. My super soldiers failing to kill those cultists just reflects well on the cultists. It may be frustrating for one player, but it adds to the game.

I think the last model-vs-board randomness is charge distances, but those serve a significant mechanical purpose. They'd need to make huge changes to the game to remove the randomness. I think a better solution would be to find a way for the charge targets to influence that random roll, which would convert it to a model vs model randomness and make it more narratively satisfying. Maybe reworking overwatch again, but that's speculation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.
Obscuring is through or over. That first HT is neither. It is visible and a valid target for shooting. The second one is not, as you would have to draw LOS over the terrain.
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin. In practice, you just mention your intention to your opponent, "he's Obscured", and they'll agree or ask you to move the model a bit. Playing like that goes both ways. You can peak around corners to shoot, and you're available to be shot in return. The position of a model does not absolutely correspond to their position in the fantasy battle, there's some leeway for models moving around. There's always going to be quirks with abstraction. It's just not relevant to a discussion about gameplay depth.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/26 23:51:14


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The issue for me is that "army vs terrain" is actually a thing in real life. You can justify anything lorewise.

"Why do you get cover against my flamethrower? Why are my supersoldiers with enhanced autosensors hindered by woods / dense terrain?"

Model vs model with no terrain is just boring. Terrain should matter. It should matter in any phase where it realistically matters.

As for "what counts as what terrain", if I recall correctly the rule was "talk with your opponent". If you are playing with terrain that is unreasonable, that is as much your fault in pre-game decision-making as it is your opponent's. I specifically remember calling only the "crater wall" difficult terrain for those craters myself, since they were perfectly circular


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 00:04:23


Post by: DarkHound


I think army vs terrain is fair. I don't disagree with you entirely, but it's a matter of degrees. Space Marines are slowed by rugged terrain, sure. Their accuracy is hindered by smoke and dense foliage, fine. My Space Marine rolled a one and now he can't move across a crater is... not good. It's not the worst thing for gameplay, but I don't think it improves the experience.

Terrain still matters even if the effects aren't random. I've been putting in about two games a week for the past 4 months and terrain has always been crucial to the outcome of the game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 00:34:33


Post by: Mezmorki


The pertinent point that resonates with me regarding vehicles and difficult terrain is not the outcome of rolling a one per se, but rather the fact that the risk exists at all as a decision point. In the absence of the risk of rolling a 1, and with difficult terrain merely reducing how many inches you move in a predictable manner, you're eliminating a binary "tactical" choice from the game (eg you decide between two totally different movement paths with potentially broader ramifications for unit positioning) and replacing it with a simple optimization decision.

I feel pretty strongly that the presence of these sorts of binary choices was a good thing for the tactical depth of the game. You have that choices to avoid the risk, and need to weight whether it's worth it or not.

The second question is about how damaging the failure result is or should be. Personally, I think the failure results were a tad too punitive in the past. For example, what if rolling a 1 for the vehicles dangerous terrain test meant you rolled a second die and looked at a table. Maybe the vehicle is just "stuck" for a turn (eg crew stunned) or can only move 3" next turn. Maybe there's a chance it does truly get immobilized. There are ways to make it somewhat less punishing but it requires adding a bit more nuance to the rules.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 00:47:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 DarkHound wrote:
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin.
I didn't need to contrive anything. As the rules allow you to shoot any part of a model, even the tips of spikes, this is what the terrain rules lead to - spike to the side? In LOS. Spike above? Out of LOS. It's STUPID.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 00:58:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Sure, it could be a matter of how severe the penalties are (i.e. "a matter of degrees").

But we have to be careful to make sure they are sufficiently punishing to become a risk, rather than a "chore" (or that choosing the "chore" option is safer).

What I mean can be typified by Chain of Command.

Tanks that roll doubles crossing certain types of terrain bog down. Next turn, they can try to move but on a 1-3 they immobilize permanently. How to cross that terrain? You can choose to move only 1d6. You can choose a "chore" option (that is perfectly safe but slow), a "safe" option (that is perfectly safe and fast but in a different direction, i.e. around the terrain), a "risky" option (move 2d6), or a "super risky" option (move 3d6, most vehicle's top speed).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 01:04:10


Post by: DarkHound


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin.
I didn't need to contrive anything. As the rules allow you to shoot any part of a model, even the tips of spikes, this is what the terrain rules lead to - spike to the side? In LOS. Spike above? Out of LOS. It's STUPID.
I don't even disagree that it's stupid. I want LoS to become base-to-base lines like the Dense terrain rules so modeling doesn't have a gameplay effect. Of course that still wouldn't remove edge cases. Line of sight has never, ever been without stupid quirks in any edition of 40k. However, firstly, in practice it's a non-issue, you just talk to your opponent. And secondly, it's still not relevant to a discussion about gameplay depth.
 Mezmorki wrote:
The pertinent point that resonates with me regarding vehicles and difficult terrain is not the outcome of rolling a one per se, but rather the fact that the risk exists at all as a decision point.

I feel pretty strongly that the presence of these sorts of binary choices was a good thing for the tactical depth of the game. You have that choices to avoid the risk, and need to weight whether it's worth it or not.

The second question is about how damaging the failure result is or should be. Personally, I think the failure results were a tad too punitive in the past. There are ways to make it somewhat less punishing but it requires adding a bit more nuance to the rules.
That's all definitely fair points, but you run into the external constraints. More die rolls to slow the game, more rules to remember and implement. Are the additional rules meaningful enough, or is -2" movement sufficient abstract representation?

It's the same issue with vehicle armor facing and weapon arcs. Previous editions having undefined weapon arcs and armor facings were entirely reliant on the models and agreements with the opponent. If you did anything different in modeling, you could drastically change how the model works. That is just not good for consistent rules writing. What is the frontal facing of a Wave Serpent? How do you define its center?

In that particular case, you have two options: define vehicle facings and weapon arcs in all circumstances, or abstract them. The former would be a mountain of work and would demolish custom models. You gain some improvement to gameplay, but are you gaining enough to justify the work and load on the players? They decided no, and instead you have to imagine a vehicle can maneuver to bring its guns to bear on targets even if you left the model facing the wrong way. Likewise, you imagine the vehicle turns its armor toward incoming fire. It's a little less deep, but far, far simpler to implement and play.

Same issue again with template and blast weapons. Sure, it's cool to represent the actual area of the explosion, but the external effect was everyone took ages to spread their models 2" all the time. It just wasted a bunch of time and didn't add much to the game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 01:06:16


Post by: H.B.M.C.


If 40k still had vehicles you could easily do this via speed-bands.

A vehicle can move half (or lower) it's maximum speed to avoid the need to take any tests for difficult/dangerous terrain. Otherwise, they can go flat out and risk it. There's your risk-vs-reward.

I still wouldn't make those craters wreck your vehicle's tracks though.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 01:14:00


Post by: yukishiro1


 catbarf wrote:


The core design paradigm of very simple core rules, with complexity coming from the codices, means that the core rules offer less opportunity for tactics, and more of the decision space comes from the army composition. And if my army composition makes for a bad match-up, it's a real struggle.


This is absolutely right IMO. 40k is largely a game of deceptively shallow gameplay given false "depth" through width. You have a bajillion choices, but a few of them are the right choices. Once you make the right choices, it's largely just a matter of execution. The actual strategy and tactics are largely just a matter of getting enough reps in. It practically never happens that you win or lose a game because your opponent did something brilliant and unexpected and completely original because they saw an opportunity you didn't. You win or lose games because your lists stack up in a certain way, then you throw in a bit of RNG and a bit of "does your opponent have as many reps and as much knowledge of the game as you do?" and that determines the result.

In contrast, LOTR is another GW game that has a base ruleset that is much deeper than 40k's, not in the sense of having more rules per se, but in the sense of giving more ability for a player's ability to "view" the game to influence the result. In practice the game is held back by GW's usual inability to create balanced army rules, but the base ruleset is dramatically different in the degree to which it rewards the ability to think strategically and tactically within the game itself, as opposed to peripherally through list-building or getting in practice reps.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 01:33:24


Post by: The_Real_Chris


So 2 broad angles here - for a wargame and a game. Wargames have fairly standard expectations for optimisation, strategy and tactics.

You had your standard optimisation challenges around unit choices, or if they were fixed you had a bleed over into strategy as to where they would be deployed and what they would do. Its rare in a wargame for models to be able to both traverse and effect the entire battlespace. Your deployment matters and your idea around what the formations will do matters as it gives the bounds for your tactics with each element. Broadly if the infantry companies are going to take the hill supported by armour, you won't be able to get those infantry over to the other side of the board, and the armour won't be able to do the attack there, reposition and do an attack on the other side as well.
Your tactics were how each element does its stuff, what facings your attack has, what screens you can maintain, where you commit your barrages etc.

40k has a very important list building phase, a small battlespace and high speeds, to the extent transport vehicles are fairly pointless. To enable accessibility the units have little to worry about in terms of facings, lines of attack etc, thought there are still choices like screens and so on.
Complexity comes from knowing in a vaguely rock paper scissors way what to target with what and the CP/Strat game gives additional elements to every layer of decision making. There actually are traditional wargames like this, though they tend to be map and counter games with far lower movement and the hands of cards baked into the gameplay.

Currently I think GW has games where cards are built far better into the model game (Underworlds, Gorechosen etc.) and they have had games in the past they have far more of the traditional optimisation, strategy and tactics (Epic and Warmaster for example). You can throw AT in there too, but I haven't played that enough to properly comment on where in that continuum it sits.

I think as more and more players join that have no understanding of traditional strat and tactics and take it more as a straight game that becomes less of a problem, though after exposure through other games or computer games their expectations of 40k can shift.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 02:16:05


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:


The core design paradigm of very simple core rules, with complexity coming from the codices, means that the core rules offer less opportunity for tactics, and more of the decision space comes from the army composition. And if my army composition makes for a bad match-up, it's a real struggle.


This is absolutely right IMO. 40k is largely a game of deceptively shallow gameplay given false "depth" through width. You have a bajillion choices, but a few of them are the right choices. Once you make the right choices, it's largely just a matter of execution. The actual strategy and tactics are largely just a matter of getting enough reps in. It practically never happens that you win or lose a game because your opponent did something brilliant and unexpected and completely original because they saw an opportunity you didn't. You win or lose games because your lists stack up in a certain way, then you throw in a bit of RNG and a bit of "does your opponent have as many reps and as much knowledge of the game as you do?" and that determines the result.

In contrast, LOTR is another GW game that has a base ruleset that is much deeper than 40k's, not in the sense of having more rules per se, but in the sense of giving more ability for a player's ability to "view" the game to influence the result. In practice the game is held back by GW's usual inability to create balanced army rules, but the base ruleset is dramatically different in the degree to which it rewards the ability to think strategically and tactically within the game itself, as opposed to peripherally through list-building or getting in practice reps.


If both opponents have as many reps and equivalent knowledge what determines the victor? Just RNG? Just the list? What if they both have the same list?

Could you give a concrete example of a decision in LotR that has depth?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 02:22:44


Post by: Wyldhunt


 DarkHound wrote:
Unit1126PL, I'd say Wyldhunt's most pertinent point is the last sentence. You're right that those are still calculated risks, but the game can choose to represent almost anything as a risk. There absolutely should be risks. The question is: what is worth representing?

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.

Randomness in models attacking each other is great. My super soldiers failing to kill those cultists just reflects well on the cultists. It may be frustrating for one player, but it adds to the game.

I think the last model-vs-board randomness is charge distances, but those serve a significant mechanical purpose. They'd need to make huge changes to the game to remove the randomness. I think a better solution would be to find a way for the charge targets to influence that random roll, which would convert it to a model vs model randomness and make it more narratively satisfying. Maybe reworking overwatch again, but that's speculation...


This. Well put, DarkHound.

I understand that, in theory, something like a difficult terrain test is trying to add to the game by creating the choice of whether or not to go into the terrain. However, the possibility of rolling so badly on that test that your unit functionally skips a turn is too punitive/frustrating to be worthwhile. Technically it creates the choice of whether or not to take the dt test in the first place, but the outcomes of that choice broadly break down like this:

* Go around the terrain and accomplish what you're going for. You end up happy with your choice, but you're no better off than if the dt rule didn't exist in the first place.
* Go around the terrain and find out that it has caused you to fail your objective (ex: you failed a charge because you were slightly farther away than if you'd gone through the terrain). You end up frustrated.
* Go through the terrain and accomplish what you were going for. You end up happy with your choice, but you're no better off than if the dt rule didn't exist in the first place.
* Go through the terrain and fail to accomplish your objective. End up frustrated.

So at best, you end up breaking even, and sometimes you end up actively frustrated. That doesn't strike me as the kind of mechanic I want to include in my game.

And most of the other random mechanics we've discussed here have the same problem. The pros to including those mechanics are outweighed or even directly cancelled out by how frustrating it is when those rolls go badly for you. I've never seen a player lose a unit to a deepstrike mishap and enjoy it. I've never heard someone say, "I wish my lascannon devastators would randomly shoot at my opponent's cultists when I want them to shoot at his tanks." Failing a 3" charge is annoying when you're the charger, and it feels hollow to them wipe out those chargers because the entire enemy unit tripped on their shoelaces.

Plus, I think we're being kind of generous to assume that not going through difficult terrain is always a real choice. Remember: it used to be that many common types of terrain were dt. Dt was kind of everywhere for a while. Imagine you're playing orks. Your boyz want to charge the nearby enemy. If they don't, you can count on the enemy shooting your boyz and wiping them off the table next turn. The enemy is on the other side of some craters. If you move around the craters, your chances of making a charge are slim to none. If you go through the craters, you'll be very likely to make your charge as long as you don't fumble the dt roll.

In this scenario, going through the craters is pretty obviously the optimal choice despite there being a chance of failure from the difficult terrain. NOT going through the craters would be mathematically less likely to get you into melee. So you go into the craters, and you roll snake eyes on your dt test, and now your ork boyz are going to die having accomplished nothing because of one bad roll. Is that fun? Is your gaming experience improved by having a hole in the ground randomly screw you over like that? If you'd opted to walk around the craters, would you find yourself saying, "Wow! It was really cool how I decided to hurt my chances of getting into melee just now."?

So we're not talking about mechanics that you can just choose to ignore if you don't like them. We're talking about inserting a bunch of arbitrary failure points that might not have great counterplay.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 03:13:20


Post by: yukishiro1


 Daedalus81 wrote:


If both opponents have as many reps and equivalent knowledge what determines the victor? Just RNG? Just the list? What if they both have the same list?

Could you give a concrete example of a decision in LotR that has depth?


Choosing what to activate when. Choosing when to use heroic actions, and how. Choosing the order of resolving combats, and how to resolve them. We could go on for a while here actually, almost everything about LOTR's base rules system encourages meaningful gameplay decisions within the game, not just at the list-building stage. 40k is easy to plan out; you have a game plan and you pretty much execute it, aided by the non-interactivity of 40k's turn system. Trying to change plans partway through a game is almost always a mistake, you're rewarded for just doing what you set out to do in a very methodical way. When decisive, unexpected actions turn the game on its head, it's almost always because your opponent just didn't know you could do something - i.e. a rules gotcha - rather than you spotting and taking advantage of a tactical or strategic opportunity they couldn't see.

40k is basically a glorified resource management game, you trade resources of one type for resources of another - models for victory points, or models for your opponent's models which results in diminishing their ability to trade models for victory points. LOTR is more like chess but with asymmetric forces and RNG elements. Maybe even complex checkers is a better metaphor, because it has the element where if you get things set up right, you can run the whole board in just a few moves, so a lot of the skill is in setting up that board state.

As I stated before, the actual army rules for LOTR let this system down a lot in terms of creating overpowered 40k-style wombo combos that often sap a lot of the need to play smart out of the game. But that's GW for you. Even when they create an extremely promising basic rule system, they screw it up with overpowered special rules.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 03:57:50


Post by: The_Real_Chris


Wyldhunt wrote:
And most of the other random mechanics we've discussed here have the same problem. The pros to including those mechanics are outweighed or even directly cancelled out by how frustrating it is when those rolls go badly for you. I've never seen a player lose a unit to a deepstrike mishap and enjoy it. I've never heard someone say, "I wish my lascannon devastators would randomly shoot at my opponent's cultists when I want them to shoot at his tanks." Failing a 3" charge is annoying when you're the charger, and it feels hollow to them wipe out those chargers because the entire enemy unit tripped on their shoelaces.

So we're not talking about mechanics that you can just choose to ignore if you don't like them. We're talking about inserting a bunch of arbitrary failure points that might not have great counterplay.


And you include those because the normal consequence of movement decisions is to be out of position. Other than auras and distances to objectives it is very hard to be significantly out of position in 40k. So you have artificial failure points built in. And things like auras become game changing so you have movement consequences and decisions. Personally I would prefer deploying my infantry badly to do more than impact one round of shooting. For my guard I can redeploy them 14-24" depending on dice rolls.

Start having real choices on the table and you can get rid of the forced tactics that are used to substitute for this. My marines are high tech and elite, why can't the Chaplain inspire everyone on the battlefield, instead of everyone a step and a reach away - is he handing out challenge coins? But if my movement and target options can really benefit or suffer from movement and deployment choices, more than the fairly basic way they do now, that type of thing can be opened up and the game become less complicated but more complex to play.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 03:59:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I guess I will fundamentally disagree on "what is a choice" with people.

To me, since putting your models and maneuvering models on the table is a choice, then positional things that cause them to subsequently fail actions are the consequences of choices made.

Then the competition becomes between your opponent's ability to make positional decision (forcing you to use DT to charge) and your ability to make positional decisions (success by going around the terrain).

Remember, your opponent gets a vote. If the quickest way to combat is through the terrain, your opponent probably meant to do that with his maneuvering, and if you roll snake eyes, that isn't a random "bolt from the blue" failure, it is a success in decision making - just, regrettably a success for your opponent rather than you.

Just like rolling a 1 for our Desperate Breakout surrounded vehicle. Your opponent surrounded it, so you rolling a 1 isn't just "womp womp you lose" - it is the consequence of clever positioning by your opponent.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 04:44:00


Post by: DarkHound


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Remember, your opponent gets a vote. If the quickest way to combat is through the terrain, your opponent probably meant to do that with his maneuvering, and if you roll snake eyes, that isn't a random "bolt from the blue" failure, it is a success in decision making - just, regrettably a success for your opponent rather than you.
You know, the other week I played a Crusade game where I made all terrain into difficult terrain for my opponent. I was able to measure out distances and make his charges awful or impossible. So I have experience in exactly this scenario, particularly in one critical instance. My Dire Avengers had 18" guns, and if the Sisters of Battle completed their charge then they'd flip the objective for a winning lead. With the flat -4", I know for certain that he can't reach me, so I can move up and shoot. If the terrain caused rolls instead, then it'd be unlikely, but not impossible, for him to make the distance (especially with miracle dice and re-rolls). I'd have to play as if the difficult terrain isn't there.

It's not that I don't have a choice, but rather the optimal choice is to assume the rule doesn't have an effect. Given the opportunity, my opponent has to try for the charge because the payout is game winning, so it's not influencing his decisions either. If both players are playing with the rule in mind, and in both cases the optimal play is to ignore the effect of the rule, then it's not a good rule.

It was this game, in case you were concerned my example was contrived.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 06:41:00


Post by: vict0988


 DarkHound wrote:
I suppose actually I disagree with the OP's first sentence and the entire premise of the thread. I applaud them for defining terms, and I agree with their definitions, but I know those complex decisions are already present in the game. If the game doesn't feel deep because you always know what the right decision is, you should go run rampant through the GTs.

I wrote this message twice and deleted it because I couldn't find a nice way to say it
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
BB is all about position and manoeuvre, I don't get how you could get a game more about that than BB, it's a part of every instance of the game, from movement, to passing, to combat, it matters where your dudes are in relation to each other and in relation to your opponent's dudes and manoeuvring is risky business in BB so you have to judge which risks are worth taking to get into position and which risks to take first... Do you dislike BB? I think it's a pretty great game, the only thing I don't like is the turnover mechanic when you forget things, but the video game handles that. I often regret not having the game permanently installed on my hard drive.
Umm... I said that position and manoeuvre matters in BB. I'm not sure why you felt the need to launch into an argument that basically agrees with that.

Because someone said it was sad that it matters more in BB, so I thought the argument was that position and manouvre matters 2/10 in 9th, 4/10 in BB, how sad that 9th is worse at making positioning and manoeuvring interesting and difficult compared to a game where it isn't even that interesting or difficult. While my idea is that it matters 6/10 in 40k and 8/10 in BB, that's not sad, because for position and manouvre to matter more you have to make something like chess with zero randomness, list-building or advancement and I don't think it's sad that 40k is not chess in the same way it's not sad that cards matter more in MTG than in 9th. The suggestion for tackle zones in 40k was my suggestion for how 40k could have more focus on position and manouvre.

I didn't click your link, I don't see how positioning becomes more important because you need to draw LOS with all of your guns instead of the tip of your tank tread, you still have to stay in LOS of things you want to shoot and stay out of LOS of things you don't want to get shot by. The model see = model shoot abstraction can be explained by 40k being an abstraction of a moving battlefield using static miniatures, I know it breaks the immersion of a great amount of players, but it only makes positioning matter a tiny bit less in that you don't have to drive your tank into the middle of everything to use all your guns and maybe you don't want to use your rear-facing guns, but that raises the question why it exists when it never sees use. Having models with hull-mounted guns each facing 90 degrees from the previous gun such that no two guns can ever shoot the same target has made me appreciate the simplicity of just firing my guns at one or two units.

In most 9th games tri-pointing, bad touching, mid-game objective scoring more than make up for not having vehicle facings and not having to draw LOS with individual guns. None of my vehicles had worse side-armour and the only vehicles which were at risk of getting shot in the ass, Night Scythes and Monoliths did not have worse rear armour. Effectively armour facings was just a way to make melee better against my vehicles, positioning and manoeuvring did not play into it. Had Necron vehicles been designed for the system with worse side armour and all guns pointing in one direction, maybe I would have been more fond of those systems. Tri-pointing, bad touching and mid-game objective scoring were games I could at least play at participating in and when Necrons stopped being the mandatory triple Doomsday Ark + 1-3 Titanic units faction.
PenitentJake wrote:
If auras are one of the most frequent complaints about 9th, and auras have a range from characters that grant them, and if the number of characters that grant them have been limited...

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?

No, you don't understand, having to stay in aura range is fiddly and wastes time, having to stay in LOS with 4 hull mounted guns pointing in each cardinal direction is fun because it was a rule used prior to 8th /sarcasm.
 Mezmorki wrote:
The pertinent point that resonates with me regarding vehicles and difficult terrain is not the outcome of rolling a one per se, but rather the fact that the risk exists at all as a decision point. In the absence of the risk of rolling a 1, and with difficult terrain merely reducing how many inches you move in a predictable manner, you're eliminating a binary "tactical" choice from the game (eg you decide between two totally different movement paths with potentially broader ramifications for unit positioning) and replacing it with a simple optimization decision.

There is still an optimal decision, whether that is taking the risk or not taking the risk. What you actually want is for players to sometimes be rewarded for taking the wrong decision and punished for taking the right decision, that makes the game harder to learn and get good at and frustrating to play. You have to go learn statistics, because what's the chance that you will roll 2+ 3 times in a row? That's not something most people know or can intuitively calculate, it's 58%.
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin.
I didn't need to contrive anything. As the rules allow you to shoot any part of a model, even the tips of spikes, this is what the terrain rules lead to - spike to the side? In LOS. Spike above? Out of LOS. It's STUPID.

No less stupid than a giant hovertank getting stuck on the lip of a small crater, how were you able to come up with an elaborate excuse for 4th but 9th edition's abstractions leave you flabbergasted? Did you remember to take off the nostalgia glasses before entering the debate?
yukishiro1 wrote:
Choosing what to activate when. Choosing when to use heroic actions, and how. Choosing the order of resolving combats, and how to resolve them.

Choosing who to shoot or charge with first to have a Command Re-roll handy when it is most important instead of wasting it too early. Choosing when to use Stratagems and which ones to use. Choosing which unit to fight with first and which weapons to fire or fight with first to maximize damage against multi-wound models.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 07:12:30


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I guess I will fundamentally disagree on "what is a choice" with people.

To me, since putting your models and maneuvering models on the table is a choice, then positional things that cause them to subsequently fail actions are the consequences of choices made.

Yeah, we might just be looking for different things in our gaming experience. I get what you're saying about going into the crater (or my opponent standing near it) being a choice, but it's not the kind of choice I'm looking for in my action-packed scifi game. If I have a turn where I flub my shooting, I can shrug and picture my opponent's tanking the shots thanks to their own daunting defensive abilities. Them's the breaks. I got to take my shot, and the dice fell as they would. But when I don't even get to shoot in the first place because my dudes were waddling clumsily through a mud puddle, that's just lame. I feel like I was denied my chance to actually fight, and fighting is the core engagement of the game.

I don't find that lack of activity satisfying. It feels like my units were denied the chance to actually play the game. Tripping in a mud puddle or losing sight of a squadmate or however you want to fluff it is a thing that probably a thing that can be assumed to happen from time to time, but it's not what the audience is here to see. As DarkHound put it earlier:

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.


My space knights probably do occassionally struggle to climb up a dirt pile. But do they do it so often that they need a 1/36 chance of it being represented on the tabletop every time they move through a crater, ruin, or forest?

If you enjoy having your units trip on their shoe strings and die from scattering into a river of lava during deepstrike, I wish you happy gaming. Personally, I don't think the game makes the decision making process interesting enough to warrant those consequences. I remember too many occassions where my opponent lost a unit to deepstrike mishaps. He's not happy about it because it means he doesn't get to use his toys and is more likely to lose as a result. I'm not happy about it because it feels like the game rules just gave me a points handicap. It makes sense that it's gone.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 09:48:40


Post by: vipoid


 DarkHound wrote:
His point was that people acknowledge that auras require positioning, auras give a significant advantage (that some dislike), therefore positioning is important for gaining advantages.


But that's the point - I'm not sure most people who dislike auras dislike them because they're powerful.

There have been a few strong ones, sure (Girlyman's double-aura in 8th comes to mind) but by and large the effect is pretty weak. Instead, most of the complaints I've seen are:
- They add nothing to the game.
- Most of them involve rerolling 1s, and rerolling 1s for half a dozen different units is an excellent way to waste everyone's time.
- They're always on with no resource management and almost no counterplay, making them awful from a game-design perspective.
- Most of them are just copied and pasted, so far from differentiating HQs from different armies (and, in many cases, different species) they just make them all feel the same.


(I could also question the idea that putting a bunch of friendly models around another friendly model amounts to any sort of meaningful tactical positioning but that's an argument for another time.)


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 09:51:17


Post by: tneva82


 DarkHound wrote:

This is what I mean by position and manoeuvre, and how little it matters in 40k. It is sad.
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.


Obscuring only blocks UPSIDE. Not SIDEWAY.

Tyrant is visible in left-right angle. Obscuring doesn't matter. Obscuring blocks through terrain and also gives infinite height. It doesn't give infinite width.


So yeah. Guess you either don't play the game or have forgotten how basic rules work.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 10:55:46


Post by: Galas


Auras are just the modern equivalent of having characters attachet to units.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 11:23:15


Post by: Blackie


 Galas wrote:
Auras are just the modern equivalent of having characters attachet to units.


Exactly. And thankfully deathstars are no more.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 11:31:46


Post by: Unit1126PLL


DarkHound wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Remember, your opponent gets a vote. If the quickest way to combat is through the terrain, your opponent probably meant to do that with his maneuvering, and if you roll snake eyes, that isn't a random "bolt from the blue" failure, it is a success in decision making - just, regrettably a success for your opponent rather than you.
You know, the other week I played a Crusade game where I made all terrain into difficult terrain for my opponent. I was able to measure out distances and make his charges awful or impossible. So I have experience in exactly this scenario, particularly in one critical instance. My Dire Avengers had 18" guns, and if the Sisters of Battle completed their charge then they'd flip the objective for a winning lead. With the flat -4", I know for certain that he can't reach me, so I can move up and shoot. If the terrain caused rolls instead, then it'd be unlikely, but not impossible, for him to make the distance (especially with miracle dice and re-rolls). I'd have to play as if the difficult terrain isn't there.

It's not that I don't have a choice, but rather the optimal choice is to assume the rule doesn't have an effect. Given the opportunity, my opponent has to try for the charge because the payout is game winning, so it's not influencing his decisions either. If both players are playing with the rule in mind, and in both cases the optimal play is to ignore the effect of the rule, then it's not a good rule.

It was this game, in case you were concerned my example was contrived.


The whole point of dice rolls is an abstraction of the randomness and unpredictability of war ("friction" or "fog of war" or what have you).

Taking away the randomness means there is no risk vs. reward calculation as you yourself admit in your own post.

What skill in generalship is there in knowing that the enemy positively definitely cannot reach you, so you are fine to move up and shoot?

If the calculus is "If terrain, move up and shoot, if not terrain, don't do that" then there is no generalship involved, just a flowchart.

If the calculus is "well, I can move up 3", making the charge a bit more likely but getting half my guns in range, that might be worth it. Or I could move up 5-6", get all my guns in range, and really lay down the hurt, but then again this specific engagement doesn't really matter so maybe playing it safe is key..."

THAT'S a decision. Not a flowchart. Weighing pros and cons, determining value, determining, managing, and mitigating risk...

Wyldhunt wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I guess I will fundamentally disagree on "what is a choice" with people.

To me, since putting your models and maneuvering models on the table is a choice, then positional things that cause them to subsequently fail actions are the consequences of choices made.

Yeah, we might just be looking for different things in our gaming experience. I get what you're saying about going into the crater (or my opponent standing near it) being a choice, but it's not the kind of choice I'm looking for in my action-packed scifi game. If I have a turn where I flub my shooting, I can shrug and picture my opponent's tanking the shots thanks to their own daunting defensive abilities. Them's the breaks. I got to take my shot, and the dice fell as they would. But when I don't even get to shoot in the first place because my dudes were waddling clumsily through a mud puddle, that's just lame. I feel like I was denied my chance to actually fight, and fighting is the core engagement of the game.

I don't find that lack of activity satisfying. It feels like my units were denied the chance to actually play the game. Tripping in a mud puddle or losing sight of a squadmate or however you want to fluff it is a thing that probably a thing that can be assumed to happen from time to time, but it's not what the audience is here to see. As DarkHound put it earlier:

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.


My space knights probably do occassionally struggle to climb up a dirt pile. But do they do it so often that they need a 1/36 chance of it being represented on the tabletop every time they move through a crater, ruin, or forest?

If you enjoy having your units trip on their shoe strings and die from scattering into a river of lava during deepstrike, I wish you happy gaming. Personally, I don't think the game makes the decision making process interesting enough to warrant those consequences. I remember too many occassions where my opponent lost a unit to deepstrike mishaps. He's not happy about it because it means he doesn't get to use his toys and is more likely to lose as a result. I'm not happy about it because it feels like the game rules just gave me a points handicap. It makes sense that it's gone.


To me, battles are interactions with the battlespace as well as with the opponent. This means that decisions need to be made with regards to the battlespace as well as the opponent.

If you find this onerous, then we really are looking for two different things. I am looking for a wargame (war is in the name) while you are looking for a game that's vaguely war-themed, where uncertainty is reduced, terrain does not impact units (except in the cases where it does - after all, it is okay for your Space Marines to totally fail to hit because of some woods, but if they fail to move because of some woods then it's unacceptable and immersion-breaking).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 11:40:47


Post by: Slipspace


 Galas wrote:
Auras are just the modern equivalent of having characters attachet to units.


I don't think that's accurate. The two really aren't equivalent. Prior to 8th edition abilities like re-rolling 1s to hit were pretty rare, re-rolling to wound even rarer. In the case of an attached character they only affected a single unit, rather than potentially affecting your entire army (even taking into account 1000-point deathstar units) and they were often taken for their increased combat power rather than purely buffing a variety of units. Some had USRs that carried over onto their unit but that's still nowhere near the same as handing out a "re-roll everything" buff to all units within 6".

The problem most people have with auras, other than how boring and unimaginative they are, is how trivially easy they are to utilise. Technically you need to position correctly to take advantage of them but having a single model within 6" of a character who's likely in the middle of your army is hardly difficult and not the mark of some brilliantly insightful tactical genius.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 11:45:15


Post by: Eldarsif


I think the reason people are less interested in every random minutia of the battlefield are several reasons:

* Time. It takes time to simulate a whole bunch of things and slowing down the game isn't always preferable. There is more to life than an unnecessarily bogged down game that is trying to be Real Life 40k: The Game. Especially when you get older and want to do more in the time allotted to you before your deathbed.
* Terrain randomness is unequal. A difficult terrain often doesn't affect hover/flying things, so how do you balance something that maybe 1/4th of the armies will encounter 1/6th of the time? It just makes some armies suck more to play than others, especially when the dice gods seem especially unfavorable to you.
* Adding these things does not automatically make the game more fun. I know I don't miss much of the convoluted random stuff from previous editions.

Now, that is not to say some people want all this randomness back with extra bells and whistles, but it does appear a lot of people prefer the newer system. Only place I even hear people talk about the ol' systems is on Dakkadakka. Only people I might occasionally hear people lament the new editions locally are people who stopped playing over 10 years ago or people who have all they ever needed to play with themselves and are not interested in engaging with the playerbase at large, making it so that they can easily just homebrew and play in their own bubble.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 11:54:41


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 vict0988 wrote:
... nostalgia glasses...
Cool. I think we're done here.

And I didn't play 4th, so, really, what are you arguing against? Certainly nothing I said...



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 12:11:19


Post by: Galas


Slipspace wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Auras are just the modern equivalent of having characters attachet to units.


I don't think that's accurate. The two really aren't equivalent. Prior to 8th edition abilities like re-rolling 1s to hit were pretty rare, re-rolling to wound even rarer. In the case of an attached character they only affected a single unit, rather than potentially affecting your entire army (even taking into account 1000-point deathstar units) and they were often taken for their increased combat power rather than purely buffing a variety of units. Some had USRs that carried over onto their unit but that's still nowhere near the same as handing out a "re-roll everything" buff to all units within 6".

The problem most people have with auras, other than how boring and unimaginative they are, is how trivially easy they are to utilise. Technically you need to position correctly to take advantage of them but having a single model within 6" of a character who's likely in the middle of your army is hardly difficult and not the mark of some brilliantly insightful tactical genius.


I mean, stuff like Aphotecaries giving 6+ FNP is literally an aura now. I'm not saying all character buffs were converted into auras 1:1 but auras are the way for characters to interact with units of 8th and 9th. So I don't understand all this gnashing of teeth agaisnt them. Having your units benefit from an aura is no difficult thats true. But it wasn't a problem before to have characters attached to a unit to buff it. It didn't required any kind of tactical thinking.

Personally, I'm neutral towards auras, I just like my characters more being independent now and feeling more powerfull, stuff like techmarines, aphotecaries, etc... (But I believe people likes their characters too much, snipers should be better in general)


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 12:44:45


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


If both opponents have as many reps and equivalent knowledge what determines the victor? Just RNG? Just the list? What if they both have the same list?

Could you give a concrete example of a decision in LotR that has depth?


Choosing what to activate when. Choosing when to use heroic actions, and how. Choosing the order of resolving combats, and how to resolve them. We could go on for a while here actually, almost everything about LOTR's base rules system encourages meaningful gameplay decisions within the game, not just at the list-building stage. 40k is easy to plan out; you have a game plan and you pretty much execute it, aided by the non-interactivity of 40k's turn system. Trying to change plans partway through a game is almost always a mistake, you're rewarded for just doing what you set out to do in a very methodical way. When decisive, unexpected actions turn the game on its head, it's almost always because your opponent just didn't know you could do something - i.e. a rules gotcha - rather than you spotting and taking advantage of a tactical or strategic opportunity they couldn't see.

40k is basically a glorified resource management game, you trade resources of one type for resources of another - models for victory points, or models for your opponent's models which results in diminishing their ability to trade models for victory points. LOTR is more like chess but with asymmetric forces and RNG elements. Maybe even complex checkers is a better metaphor, because it has the element where if you get things set up right, you can run the whole board in just a few moves, so a lot of the skill is in setting up that board state.

As I stated before, the actual army rules for LOTR let this system down a lot in terms of creating overpowered 40k-style wombo combos that often sap a lot of the need to play smart out of the game. But that's GW for you. Even when they create an extremely promising basic rule system, they screw it up with overpowered special rules.


The things you mentioned don't demonstrate to me something that would produce an exceptional result based on the glowing review you provided or anything that can't be processed. In fact in your parlance, I would say the better player with more reps in LotR would probably out play a newer opponent who hasn't experienced such plays.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 12:50:09


Post by: Mezmorki


 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the reason people are less interested in every random minutia of the battlefield are several reasons:

* Time. It takes time to simulate a whole bunch of things and slowing down the game isn't always preferable. There is more to life than an unnecessarily bogged down game that is trying to be Real Life 40k: The Game. Especially when you get older and want to do more in the time allotted to you before your deathbed.


The arguments about "adding time" to the game are a distraction IMHO. Stratagems, CP management, more prolific re-rolling, and premeasuring all substantially more time to the game IMHO.

But more over, I'm not approaching 40K with an eye towards how quick it plays. It's always been a "long" game, especially ~2000 point mark. Moreover, if I'm having fun and being engaged with interesting decisions, I'm not particularly worried by the difference between a 3 hour or 4 hour game. If I don't have time for a full game, I'll play a smaller point game.

 Eldarsif wrote:
* Terrain randomness is unequal. A difficult terrain often doesn't affect hover/flying things, so how do you balance something that maybe 1/4th of the armies will encounter 1/6th of the time? It just makes some armies suck more to play than others, especially when the dice gods seem especially unfavorable to you.


Well, skimmers ending their turn in difficult terrain still had to take a test (running into trees, etc.) and depending on how fast you moved failing a difficult terrain test was even worse, as an immobilized result means your skimmer crashes and is destroyed.

 Eldarsif wrote:

* Adding these things does not automatically make the game more fun. I know I don't miss much of the convoluted random stuff from previous editions.


"Fun" is very subjective - and we need to be specific by what we each mean. For me, "Fun" in 40K means being faced frequently with opportunities for making interesting tactical decisions that lack a clear "correct" answer.

Moreover, I don't find failing a risky move to be "frustrating." It's part of the game and reflects the consequences of my risky decision. It's a cascading situation too. If I didn't want to be in position of having to take a risky move, then I need to ask myself why I'm in that position in the first place. Did I deploy poorly? Did my opponent deploy or move in an unanticipated way that's forcing my hand? Navigating through this is far more interesting and is the heart of the game to me. So it's not frustrating when I step back at look at it.

Even more moreover, these low chance random things do so much to drive the narrative and create memorable moments in my games.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Now, that is not to say some people want all this randomness back with extra bells and whistles, but it does appear a lot of people prefer the newer system. Only place I even hear people talk about the ol' systems is on Dakkadakka. Only people I might occasionally hear people lament the new editions locally are people who stopped playing over 10 years ago or people who have all they ever needed to play with themselves and are not interested in engaging with the playerbase at large, making it so that they can easily just homebrew and play in their own bubble.


I think this is fair. The game has grown a lot in recent years, no doubt a consequence of the changes to the core rules in 8th - but more so to the marketing effort that went with it. Look, "we've simplified the game - it's soo much more accessible now." Which it was for a time (index era) and managed to rope in a new generation of players (a good thing). Fast forward to today and it seems, based on plenty of other discussions in the community, that the game seems just as complicated as it was then, just in slightly different ways.

I'm all for people liking the current gameplay - but for people that never played the older editions, I wonder whether they'd like it more or not.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 13:11:39


Post by: vipoid


 Galas wrote:

I mean, stuff like Aphotecaries giving 6+ FNP is literally an aura now. I'm not saying all character buffs were converted into auras 1:1 but auras are the way for characters to interact with units of 8th and 9th.


Except that most characters didn't have any aura equivalents pre-8th (the closest would be providing their Ld to the unit . . . which basically no longer exists in the game).

Even those that did affected the squad they were attached to and *only* the squad they were attached to - not every nearby unit as well.


 Galas wrote:
Having your units benefit from an aura is no difficult thats true. But it wasn't a problem before to have characters attached to a unit to buff it. It didn't required any kind of tactical thinking.


It didn't require a great deal of tactical thinking before (does anything in 40k? ), but it did at least require an actual choice. If a character provided a buff to his unit then he could only provide it to a single unit - not every unit within 6". Thus, you had to choose which unit would get that buff.

Further, this also sped things up as you were only getting rerolls for a single unit, rather than every unit within 6".


 Galas wrote:

Personally, I'm neutral towards auras, I just like my characters more being independent now and feeling more powerfull, stuff like techmarines, aphotecaries, etc...


I don't necessarily mind characters being strong, I just don't think that has to translate to 'Friendly <KEYWORD SOUP> units within 6" reroll hit rolls of 1.'

To repeat what I said in a different thread (I was talking about special rules in general but I think it's especially pertinent with regard to auras):

 vipoid wrote:

2) They have to actually add something to the game beyond more bloody rerolls. Reroll 1s when standing near a character, reroll 1s to hit in melee, reroll 1s to wound when shooting, zzzzzZZZZZ. These rules add nothing to the game beyond bloat and we'd be far better off cutting them wholesale.

I think it's reasonable to say that a big part of unit- or faction-specific rules is to help differentiate the different units and factions. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever if all these "faction-specific" rules basically amount to the same rules, just with different names.

As an example, let's take three units - a Space Marine Captain, a Thousand Sons Exalted Sorcerer, and a Dark Eldar Archon.

These are, I think you would agree, quite different units. You have a super-soldier who's a loyal servant of the Emperor, a high-ranking sorcerer of the Chaos god of change and mutation, and vampiric space elf who thrives on inflicting pain and suffering and excels at labyrinthine strategies.

So what special rules are these three characters given to differentiate them?

Well, the Captain has Rites of Battle, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.
Meanwhile, the Exalted Sorcerer has Lord of the Thousand Sons, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.
In stark contras, the Archon has Overlord, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.

This is the sort of thing I absolutely *don't* want to see when it comes to special rules for units or factions.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 13:48:51


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the reason people are less interested in every random minutia of the battlefield are several reasons:

* Time. It takes time to simulate a whole bunch of things and slowing down the game isn't always preferable. There is more to life than an unnecessarily bogged down game that is trying to be Real Life 40k: The Game. Especially when you get older and want to do more in the time allotted to you before your deathbed.
* Terrain randomness is unequal. A difficult terrain often doesn't affect hover/flying things, so how do you balance something that maybe 1/4th of the armies will encounter 1/6th of the time? It just makes some armies suck more to play than others, especially when the dice gods seem especially unfavorable to you.
* Adding these things does not automatically make the game more fun. I know I don't miss much of the convoluted random stuff from previous editions.

Now, that is not to say some people want all this randomness back with extra bells and whistles, but it does appear a lot of people prefer the newer system. Only place I even hear people talk about the ol' systems is on Dakkadakka. Only people I might occasionally hear people lament the new editions locally are people who stopped playing over 10 years ago or people who have all they ever needed to play with themselves and are not interested in engaging with the playerbase at large, making it so that they can easily just homebrew and play in their own bubble.


Mezomorki already addressed some of these arguments, but I'll say it this way:

Has the game really gotten that much shorter since 4th? I'd argue not. Furthermore, time is just time - it can (and should) be managed by the points level the players are playing. Time is only undesirable if it's time wasted/being bored, and if the game is fun, then I'm not wasting my time or being bored with it, regardless of the specific mechanics at play.

Terrain randomness is unequal is precisely the point. That's how good game design works. "Look, you can play the faction with heavy tanks but they are concerned about terrain, or the faction with lighter, hovering tanks that are more immune to it (though not totally!)." Conversely: "Look, you can pay points for upgrades that allow you to mitigate/ignore terrain (dozer blades) or you can spam more things!" etc. etc. These are good, desirable things, that set factions, units, and even individual decisions apart from each other. My assault platoon might have dozer blades to move up, while my fire support platoon does not - but that decision may be regretted if my fire support has to reposition through terrain for some reason!

You just have to balance things with points costs. A skimmer that ignores terrain but has light armor and few weapons might be worth the same as a heavy battle tank that has heavy armor and great weapons but is forced to slog through terrain. And on different battlefields, this may be even more unequal - less terrain means the heavy tank will have an advantage, and more terrain means the lighter skimmer will have an advantage. This is a good thing, because it's just like Real Life, where terrain affects what units are or aren't effective to a far greater degree than in Warhammer, and should, all else being equal, force armies towards a more balanced answer. An army may choose to include (as exampled above) a maneuver platoon (with dozer blades / hover tanks) and a fire support platoon (with more points spent on firepower and less on utility). This will allow the army to lean more or less on one option or the other depending on the nature of the terrain for a specific battle. Land Speeders may not be as useful as Predators on Planet Bowling Ball, but you can really lean on them for success in a cityfight mission while you relegate the predators to relatively stationary street-corner-watchers. These are all decisions the players MAKE, whether before the game, during the game, or after the game.

For your last point, as Mezomorki points out, "fun" is subjective. Sometimes, a player may want the wargame to be a WARgame, where the contest of wits in the military mileu with Clausewitzian friction and fog-of-war is rather the point.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 13:55:20


Post by: vict0988


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
... nostalgia glasses...
Cool. I think we're done here.

And I didn't play 4th, so, really, what are you arguing against? Certainly nothing I said...


You're not the only person in the thread, do you expect me to keep track of every poster's flavour of nostalgia? I am sorry if I offended you or your favourite edition by assuming it was 4th, last time I assumed it was 5th that person got offended because "4th is betterer" or something. Thinking that a Monolith getting stuck on the lip of a crater or bush is fine, but the Monolith getting to shoot despite its guns not being able to point at the target is nostalgia glasses, you cannot say that one is STUPIDD!D!! and the other is totally realistic if you view it as an abstraction of blablabla. The preference is arbitrary and the justification is something made up after the decision that one is stupid and one is fine has already been made, not part of a careful analysis of why game rules should be one way or another.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 13:56:47


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 vict0988 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
... nostalgia glasses...
Cool. I think we're done here.

And I didn't play 4th, so, really, what are you arguing against? Certainly nothing I said...


You're not the only person in the thread, do you expect me to keep track of every poster's flavour of nostalgia? I am sorry if I offended you or your favourite edition by assuming it was 4th, last time I assumed it was 5th that person got offended because "4th is betterer" or something. Thinking that a Monolith getting stuck on the lip of a crater or bush is fine, but the Monolith getting to shoot despite its guns not being able to point at the target is nostalgia glasses, you cannot say that one is STUPIDD!D!! and the other is totally realistic if you view it as an abstraction of blablabla. The preference is arbitrary and the justification is something made up after the decision that one is stupid and one is fine has already been made, not part of a careful analysis of why game rules should be one way or another.


I get the impression that you posted something at me, but I don't understand your argument here and I wasn't reading the other argument (since it wasn't about anything I felt like I needed to pay attention to).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 15:09:04


Post by: Strg Alt


I read yesterday the Epic Armageddon Basic rules. They included rules for stuff which was absent in 40K for most of it's editions:

1. Overwatch
"True" Overwatch and not that crap that you hit only on 6.

2. Crossfire
If you can draw a line between two of your units and that line passes through an opposing unit you can claim a bonus against them when shooting at it.
So outmaneuvering is a worthwhile effort here.

3. Support
If a friendly unit is near a current close combat it may contribute to it without entering melee but helping out with supporting fire.
This won't be good in a 40K skirmish scale as firing into melee was almost always prohibited. However local engagement situations in Epic represent full 40K battles so in Epic they are fine to do that.

4. Suppression
Suppression works in Epic by putting blast markers on formations/units. A target receives a single blast marker when it is simply being shot at and for each casualty it has suffered. Each blast marker prohibits a single model of the suppressed unit from firing. Blast markers can be later removed by the Marshal action.
LOL, I can already here people complaining that they don't want to track the amount of blast markers of each unit in a 40K game!

5. Morale
A unit is automatically broken when it has accumulated as many blast markers as it has models left in the unit. Broken units can later recover in the End phase by rallying. Broken units are VERY vulnerable to ranged firepower (akin to shooting fish in a barrel).
This is a much better way of handling morale than any of the 40K editions did it in the past.


All of the above rules are way more nuanced than I was willing to describe them here. There were also instances when broken units were automatically destroyed, if an opposing unit was near them when they were fleeing which again emphasizes positioning.
I will incorporate most of those rules in my custom 40K rules.

It seems to me that GW is able to pull of to write good rules but rules of such quality will never again find it's way into 40K because GW wants to broaden the appeal of their main game to a MUCH wider audience which consists to a large degree of Little Timmy's eager to surprise each other with "Gotcha" cards like in MtG. Rip 40K.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 15:16:19


Post by: Daedalus81


Those are all great rules that work really well in AA systems.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 16:42:21


Post by: yukishiro1


 vict0988 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Choosing what to activate when. Choosing when to use heroic actions, and how. Choosing the order of resolving combats, and how to resolve them.

Choosing who to shoot or charge with first to have a Command Re-roll handy when it is most important instead of wasting it too early. Choosing when to use Stratagems and which ones to use. Choosing which unit to fight with first and which weapons to fire or fight with first to maximize damage against multi-wound models.


This is making my point for me. The equivalent choices in 40k tend to have clear "right answers" that are easily discoverable and largely just come down to your ability to mathhammer and execute on your plan. I assume you aren't familiar with LOTR's ruleset because someone who was wouldn't be seriously positing these as choices of equivalent tactical weight as the ones you have to make in LOTR. I'm not saying there's no strategy or tactics in 40k, there clearly is. But it's not the same level as many other game systems, with LOTR just being an obvious example since it's made by the same company.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
In fact in your parlance, I would say the better player with more reps in LotR would probably out play a newer opponent who hasn't experienced such plays.


Of course they would. Why would you ever want a system where the better, more experienced player doesn't generally win?

That's not the point of the comparison. The point of the comparison is that 40k's mechanics are not very deep compared to a lot of other game systems. What they are are very wide. Hundreds of stratagems, thousands of units. There's a bajillion different variables in a 40k game. But there are clear right choices to almost all of them, it's just a question of having the knowledge of the game and mathhammer capabilities to figure out what those right choices are. It's very rare that people with roughly equal experience and knowledge ever surprise one another in 40k with tactical moves the other wasn't anticipating, and that's not a coincidence. 40k is a very controlled ruleset that doesn't tend to throw up surprises that don't fall into the "rules gotcha" category. There is very limited ability to leverage the basic rules of the game in interesting and unanticipated ways to get a tactical advantage.

Let me give you one basic example from LOTR that illustrates this: the loser in a combat has to make a 1" move backwards, before damage is resolved, and if they are trapped and unable to do so, they take double damage (the real system is a bit more complicated, but let's go with this as a summary). This itself may not seem particularly tactically deep, but because combats are resolved sequentially, you can use your opponent's models as bumper cars to block one another and set up cascading combat resolutions that can turn the game completely on its head vs if you had done them in a different order. 40k has no real equivalent to this - choosing what combat to activate first in 40k is a comparatively much more simple exercise with much more limited tactical considerations.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 16:56:51


Post by: Mezmorki


At the risk of sounding like a shill .... many of the things that I'm trying to elevate in the design of 40K that emphasizes position and maneuver are things that I've reworked in ProHammer in a manner where I'm trying to balance the "punitive" (or punishing) side of failure outcomes while still retaining the core decision points that more chaotic elements of the game rules might engender.

For instance....

(1) Deep striking mishaps - if you get into a bad deep strike situation (land on impassible terrain, on-top of opponent's models, etc.) then your OPPONENT gets to setup your deep striking unit in a valid location within 12" of the original drop location. This mean's your unit is never wiped out entirely (which is a feelsbad moment) but you can still end up in a pretty precarious situation or well outside your intended drop zone.

(2) Vehicle damage tables - eliminated hull points (from 6th/7th, which were too easy to spam/abuse) but modified the vehicle damage tables so that outright destruction is less likely (7+ on glancing or 6+ on penetrating). HOWEVER, we've added some additional +1 to the damage rolls - namely that if you've suffered prior damage results (weapon destroyed, engines damage, or immobilized) there is a +1 to the damage result. Strikes a great balance.

(3) Difficult Terrain Movement - most things rolls a 2D6 and you pick the highest. HOWEVER, it's been adjusted so that you aren't subject to the movement cap of the die roll unless your movement actually takes you into the difficult terrain. If I have a unit that is 3" away from difficult terrain, and I roll a 2, I could still move up to my full 6" so long as units don't go into the terrain. Whereas before if you rolled badly, even when entirely outside of the difficult terrain, then you're unit could barely move - even if still in the open. Now at least you can attempt to get closer and move up to the terrain, even if you can't fully enter it. It puts the decision and choices in the players hand AFTER. Of course, once you're already in difficult terrain it works as we've discussed.

(4) Vehicle facings - we've defined a very clear and intuitive (and quick) process for determining vehicle facing that's been working well. Identify the mid-point along the central axis of the vehicle's hull, and then make 90-degree quadrants based on the axis line. What facing you hit is only dependent on the which of these arcs the shooting model is situated within. Very to use once you see it the first time.

(5) Charging - per 3rd-5th edition, we've kept fixed charging distances. Of course, there is no premeasuring - so that works just fine. To be honest, pre-measuring (or not) is a hugely important core method in the game that affects nearly everything else. Incidentally, not being able to premeasure can be a big time saver too. People say the random charge help mitigate pre-measuring, but really it just means you can now premeasure to finesse whether you're 7" away vs 6" vs 8" or whatever. Pick your risk tolerance and pre-measure around that. Frankly it can be worse now.

Moreover, I think estimating ranges IS a skill to be rewarded in the game. Estimating movement and whether you might be in range or not, and whether you're willing to take a risk by (for example) leaving cover to get closer to the target and not knowing the exact range is great IMHO. And so much more fluid than meticulously pre-measuring everything out all the time.

Anyway, just some food for thought.

EDIT: One more to add...

(6) Declared Fire & Charges. This is something that was never part of 40K (I don't think?) but it makes a huge difference to how you balance the shooting phase. And before anyone says "it adds too much time to the game" - let me just say that "it does not." Declaring fire (again, most units can only shoot at one target) means that you don't continually have to re-assess your shooting order after each unit makes its attack. Normally, if one's shoot at the most pressing threat first, if they kill it great, you move onto the next. If not, then maybe you'll decide which other unit will now shoot at it. And so on down the line - constantly re-evaulating based on the outcomes. With declared fire - you have to make a tactical choice of how much fire to dedicate to all possible targets. Overkilling something and wasting shots is as much a risk as under-shooting at something or banking on a lucky streak of die rolls. There is some tactics involved in how much you'll assign to what. You do this once, and then just roll out the results and see what happens. Much better IMHO.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 17:28:10


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Strg Alt wrote:
It seems to me that GW is able to pull of to write good rules but rules of such quality will never again find it's way into 40K because GW wants to broaden the appeal of their main game to a MUCH wider audience which consists to a large degree of Little Timmy's eager to surprise each other with "Gotcha" cards like in MtG. Rip 40K.

Details changed throughout the editions, but if you think 40k was ever something else than a beer&pretzels game since 3rd, you are just lying to yourself. Stratagems are some of the few things that actually added a layer of tactical decisions to the game, which makes it arguably less targeted at a younger audience. The high price level for basically everything but discounted starter boxes should keep a lot of "Little Timmys" from starting as well.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 17:52:05


Post by: Mezmorki


a_typical_hero wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
It seems to me that GW is able to pull of to write good rules but rules of such quality will never again find it's way into 40K because GW wants to broaden the appeal of their main game to a MUCH wider audience which consists to a large degree of Little Timmy's eager to surprise each other with "Gotcha" cards like in MtG. Rip 40K.

Details changed throughout the editions, but if you think 40k was ever something else than a beer&pretzels game since 3rd, you are just lying to yourself. Stratagems are some of the few things that actually added a layer of tactical decisions to the game, which makes it arguably less targeted at a younger audience. The high price level for basically everything but discounted starter boxes should keep a lot of "Little Timmys" from starting as well.


I do somewhat agree with this. I started playing in 2nd edition when I was in middle school - having learned the game on my own and then teaching my friends at the time. I just skimmed the 2nd edition rulebook the other day. I think there is an element of "fidelity" to miniature games that when done right make the rules easier to process and absorb. What I mean by this is that, ideally, the rules reflect "what you see" when you look at the table in an intuitive manner and read the game state. The facing models, true line of sight, consistent action economy, use of cover, etc. are all things that play into a intuitive understanding of the game.

Further levels of abstraction make these intuitive connections weaker. And when you then start piling on mechanics and systems and decision spaces that aren't clearly represented by the physically of models on the board moving across terrain then it's a greater cognitive load to play the game. More things to think about about, remember, and plan for other than the physical arrangement of forces.

This isn't to say that 2nd edition wasn't without faults - it was terribly clunky in many ways and it did get bloated with dark millennium, strategy cards (precursor to stratagems?), etc. But we've moved to a place where core rules are increasingly abstracted (terrain, effects of failed morale tests, handling of vehicles) with added levels of complication on top of a more abstract base, and it's complicated. I've been trying to teach my nephew 9th edition and we're starting small - but it's a burden. We've fooled around with older editions and it's gone over better. But then he looks at his indomitus box set and laments that there aren't proper rules representing his Primaris marines. GW - look what you've done!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:07:04


Post by: vipoid


 Mezmorki wrote:

(1) Deep striking mishaps - if you get into a bad deep strike situation (land on impassible terrain, on-top of opponent's models, etc.) then your OPPONENT gets to setup your deep striking unit in a valid location within 12" of the original drop location. This mean's your unit is never wiped out entirely (which is a feelsbad moment) but you can still end up in a pretty precarious situation or well outside your intended drop zone.


Just to say, I very much like this idea.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:15:28


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:

(1) Deep striking mishaps - if you get into a bad deep strike situation (land on impassible terrain, on-top of opponent's models, etc.) then your OPPONENT gets to setup your deep striking unit in a valid location within 12" of the original drop location. This mean's your unit is never wiped out entirely (which is a feelsbad moment) but you can still end up in a pretty precarious situation or well outside your intended drop zone.


Just to say, I very much like this idea.


Given that it is their turn next I see this kind of going badly since they could put you somewhere that you see nothing to shoot and they can charge you next turn.

It's a step up from simply losing the unit, but I am not sure it'd make that kind of deepstrike palatable.

If it was AA it'd be pretty cool.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:17:39


Post by: JNAProductions


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:

(1) Deep striking mishaps - if you get into a bad deep strike situation (land on impassible terrain, on-top of opponent's models, etc.) then your OPPONENT gets to setup your deep striking unit in a valid location within 12" of the original drop location. This mean's your unit is never wiped out entirely (which is a feelsbad moment) but you can still end up in a pretty precarious situation or well outside your intended drop zone.


Just to say, I very much like this idea.


Given that it is their turn next I see this kind of going badly since they could put you somewhere that you see nothing to shoot and they can charge you next turn.

It's a step up from simply losing the unit, but I am not sure it'd make that kind of deepstrike palatable.

If it was AA it'd be pretty cool.

If you Deep Strike a squad of Raptors and mishap, yeah, they'll go poof. 3+ is good, but T4 W1 is not.

If you Deep Strike a squad of Terminators and mishap, they'll be less effective. But they'll be an absolute pain the tuckus to remove-T4 isn't the best, but 2+/5++ W3 is great.

It's definitely better than them just dying outright.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:21:32


Post by: Rihgu


 Mezmorki wrote:

Moreover, I think estimating ranges IS a skill to be rewarded in the game. Estimating movement and whether you might be in range or not, and whether you're willing to take a risk by (for example) leaving cover to get closer to the target and not knowing the exact range is great IMHO. And so much more fluid than meticulously pre-measuring everything out all the time.


At least as much as having hands is a skill, I guess. Spatial awareness isn't really a skill, coming as somebody with almost a complete lack of that and depth perception (both of which are key abilities when it comes to pre-measuring). It's an ability that you can hone, but it's certainly not a skill. I'll never have the ability to estimate ranges, no matter how hard I try.

edit: besides, you can cheat "no premeasuring" in so many ways it's basically a non-factor.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:24:38


Post by: Galas


No premeasuring would be good in an enviroment that wasn't as easy to cheat it as in warhammer.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:44:25


Post by: vict0988


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
... nostalgia glasses...
Cool. I think we're done here.

And I didn't play 4th, so, really, what are you arguing against? Certainly nothing I said...


You're not the only person in the thread, do you expect me to keep track of every poster's flavour of nostalgia? I am sorry if I offended you or your favourite edition by assuming it was 4th, last time I assumed it was 5th that person got offended because "4th is betterer" or something. Thinking that a Monolith getting stuck on the lip of a crater or bush is fine, but the Monolith getting to shoot despite its guns not being able to point at the target is nostalgia glasses, you cannot say that one is STUPIDD!D!! and the other is totally realistic if you view it as an abstraction of blablabla. The preference is arbitrary and the justification is something made up after the decision that one is stupid and one is fine has already been made, not part of a careful analysis of why game rules should be one way or another.


I get the impression that you posted something at me, but I don't understand your argument here and I wasn't reading the other argument (since it wasn't about anything I felt like I needed to pay attention to).

Yeah, it was probably you, we all like one previous edition more than others, you'd have to be tasteless to like them all equally or like 6th the best
Rihgu wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:

Moreover, I think estimating ranges IS a skill to be rewarded in the game. Estimating movement and whether you might be in range or not, and whether you're willing to take a risk by (for example) leaving cover to get closer to the target and not knowing the exact range is great IMHO. And so much more fluid than meticulously pre-measuring everything out all the time.


At least as much as having hands is a skill, I guess. Spatial awareness isn't really a skill, coming as somebody with almost a complete lack of that and depth perception (both of which are key abilities when it comes to pre-measuring). It's an ability that you can hone, but it's certainly not a skill. I'll never have the ability to estimate ranges, no matter how hard I try.

edit: besides, you can cheat "no premeasuring" in so many ways it's basically a non-factor.

Cheating it is the skill, that's how I was taught, the real pros measured the length of their forearms to "get good", easier said than done when you're a boy in a growth spurt and not a longbeard /sarcasm. Being able to pre-measure with random distance disinvites problems, agreeing to the distance needed is so much easier when neither player knows the exact distance needed, it invites good sportsmanship, where guess ranges invites bad sportsmanship.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:47:38


Post by: Daedalus81


 Galas wrote:
No premeasuring would be good in an enviroment that wasn't as easy to cheat it as in warhammer.


'No premeasure' is also a thing that I dislike. It's so easily gamed by knowing standard lengths of terrain, vehicles, no mans land, etc and then paying attention to how much they move and where their guns range out to.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:48:38


Post by: Rihgu


 vict0988 wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:

Moreover, I think estimating ranges IS a skill to be rewarded in the game. Estimating movement and whether you might be in range or not, and whether you're willing to take a risk by (for example) leaving cover to get closer to the target and not knowing the exact range is great IMHO. And so much more fluid than meticulously pre-measuring everything out all the time.


At least as much as having hands is a skill, I guess. Spatial awareness isn't really a skill, coming as somebody with almost a complete lack of that and depth perception (both of which are key abilities when it comes to pre-measuring). It's an ability that you can hone, but it's certainly not a skill. I'll never have the ability to estimate ranges, no matter how hard I try.

edit: besides, you can cheat "no premeasuring" in so many ways it's basically a non-factor.

Cheating it is the skill, that's how I was taught, the real pros measured the length of their forearms to "get good", easier said than done when you're a boy in a growth spurt and not a longbeard /sarcasm. Being able to pre-measure with random distance disinvites problems, agreeing to the distance needed is so much easier when neither player knows the exact distance needed, it invites good sportsmanship, where guess ranges invites bad sportsmanship.


Even beyond that, it can be simple things that aren't technically cheating. If you bring psykers, you get to measure things before the shooting phase. You can shoot with long range units before the short range units. Granted, that one is still unavailable to me as I wouldn't be able to figure out the ranges between the two units, but there are still ordering "tricks" you can do that are not only within the rules but necessary to do. It's not like I can somehow forget that the lascannons in my devastator unit were 20" away so the tactical marines in the unit right next to them are definitely within bolter range...


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 18:50:47


Post by: JNAProductions


Measuring distances by eyeballing it is a skill.

It is not a skill I personally think should be needed for 40k. Your mileage may vary. You can discuss pros and cons to it, but ultimately, it's not the kind of thing that has an objective answer. It's taste and opinion.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 19:01:04


Post by: AnomanderRake


I've never minded pre-measuring in 40k, just because it's such an awkward game without it, when you have to worry about precise distances between a hundred different models by eyeball. No-premeasuring makes sense to me in X-Wing or Armada where there are relatively few game pieces to worry about, eyeballing fire arcs is a major part of the game, and you can opt to play lists that care less about precise distances, but in bigger games with fewer movement restrictions it just slows things down unnecessarily.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 19:03:16


Post by: Racerguy180


I've always felt that the morale phase in 8/9th sucks. Lose models for losing models is lame.

Like if you fail the morale check, you should be forced to immediately fallback d3 inches away from nearest enemy or towatds nearest board edge.

Or next shooting phase all ranges for shooting weapons are halved or -1 to hit rolls and cannot benefit from aura abilities.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 19:22:26


Post by: yukishiro1


The old morale system was one of the more tactically interesting systems in 40k. I don't think it's a coincidence it got taken out and replaced with a simple "lose X more models" system.

40k is a wide and shallow rules system, and it's become progressively wider and shallower over the years. That's probably not by accident.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 19:34:37


Post by: catbarf


No pre-measuring is a sloppy way to introduce uncertainty to otherwise deterministic mechanics (I'll put myself exactly 6.01" beyond your max range, gg). I particularly dislike when it manifests as guess weapons, because it shows that the developers don't know what they're trying to simulate- I'm the general, not an artillerist.

It always felt barely a step removed from the old games where you'd set up silhouettes and shoot them with a BB gun to determine how effective your shooting was. Good riddance to mechanics like that.

If knowing precise distances causes a negative play experience, that points to greater issues of the mechanics being overly deterministic. I'd rather see randomness come from dice than from my ability to guess distances.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 19:52:06


Post by: Sherrypie


catbarf wrote:No pre-measuring is a sloppy way to introduce uncertainty to otherwise deterministic mechanics (I'll put myself exactly 6.01" beyond your max range, gg). I particularly dislike when it manifests as guess weapons, because it shows that the developers don't know what they're trying to simulate- I'm the general, not an artillerist.

It always felt barely a step removed from the old Kriegsspiel idea of setting up silhouettes and shooting them with a BB gun to determine how effective your shooting was. Good riddance to mechanics like that.


Reisswitz's Kriegspiel from 1824 used dice with weighted results based on field experience precisely to add randomness inherent in warfare that is beyond the general's control after orders are given. What tosh are you referring to, H. G. Wells' Little Wars (the explicitly different branch of game design that spawned more gamelike products hundred years later) and its spring loaded cannons? Completely different trains of thought there.

yukishiro1 wrote:The old morale system was one of the more tactically interesting systems in 40k. I don't think it's a coincidence it got taken out and replaced with a simple "lose X more models" system.


As well as one that added even more barely meaningful shuffling of models around the table. If you had to pick up the same unit multiple times during the turn (moving, running instead of shooting, assaulting, combat maneuver trickery, potential fall backs...), that tends to get frustrating when the game design purports to support having 100+ models per side in a normal game (it doesn't). Moving back and forth, mostly on autopilot without player input when things go awry, can feel like wasted time for many. In the context of the rest of the rules (streamlined vehicle explosions, direct player control with stratagems etc.), such a subsystem would feel off in the modern version of 40k. There are plenty of interesting morale systems out there, but simply picking one that worked adequately in its original environment would not be an especially good answer to making friction matter more in this other game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 19:59:19


Post by: catbarf


 Sherrypie wrote:
Reisswitz's Kriegspiel from 1824 used dice with weighted results based on field experience precisely to add randomness inherent in warfare that is beyond the general's control after orders are given. What tosh are you referring to, H. G. Wells' Little Wars (the explicitly different branch of game design that spawned more gamelike products hundred years later) and its spring loaded cannons? Completely different trains of thought there.


Yes, edited accordingly. I misremembered and that wasn't fair to Reisswitz. I didn't have Little Wars specifically in mind but there were many 'wargames' in the early-1900s with similar ideas. I've seen that implemented as late as Seekrieg, a rivet-countingly complicated wargame and yet one method of combat resolution has you shoot a BB gun at a silhouette of the target vessel to determine which bulkhead is hit.

While Kriegsspiel was meant as a training tool rather than an entertainment product, some degree of friction is still needed to add uncertainty. Lack of pre-measuring is just a very crude way to do it, offloading the source of friction from the game mechanics and basing it on a player's presumed imperfect skill at guessing ranges.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 20:07:24


Post by: Sherrypie


 catbarf wrote:
I've seen that implemented as late as Seekrieg, a rivet-countingly complicated wargame and yet one method of combat resolution has you shoot a BB gun at a silhouette of the target vessel to determine which bulkhead is hit.


Ha, that's an interesting mismatch of ideas. All the trouble of rivet-counting simulation with the excitement of the tactile randomising act without any bearing on the fictional positioning, I can already smell the harmony of these elements



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 22:47:51


Post by: Eldarsif


I'm all for people liking the current gameplay - but for people that never played the older editions, I wonder whether they'd like it more or not.


As someone who started a year or two before third edition was released I do prefer the current edition much more. Mostly because I just find it more engaging and interesting than the older editions personally. Sure, some of the out-there hijinks are gone, but those moments made amusing fun stories after, but not during, a game. If anything they were just a negative experience for one side during a game as it ruined their day. For the record these things still happen, just not as egregiously as before.

The arguments about "adding time" to the game are a distraction IMHO. Stratagems, CP management, more prolific re-rolling, and premeasuring all substantially more time to the game IMHO.


I agree that prolific rerolling is a time waster and something I would see less of rather than more. The changes done for example in AoS 3.0 pleased me bunch as a lot of rerolls appeared to be turned into +1 to hit/wound.

Stratagems and CP management only slow down if you are new to the army, but if you are experienced with the army they just become second nature. To be fair I tend to play quite a few games with some overly competitive individuals as well as casuals and the difference in time being played is substantially different. A game with a casual can easily take 4+ hours where as with one of the competitive players it can be around 2 hours, and not because one player is tabling the other. When people know the strengths and weaknesses of their armies intimately they rarely second guess every move, something I find casuals tend to do more of. Also, before anyone asks, I categorize myself as a Daywalker: I enjoy casual a lot(currently in a Crusade campaign), but can put on my tournament hat and do business when I find the mood.

Personally I am not against terrain having more rules, but I don't think randomness is the solution as the old "roll 1 and something bad happens" is just a feel bad moment that just ruins the game for most people on the receiving end. It is something I categorize based off my experience and my opponents as a very negative player experience that did not improve the game. Those feel bad moments also hit casual players much harder in my experience than tournament players, often turning them somewhat bitter at the game. Something that I'd imagine is not good for the health of the game.

Has the game really gotten that much shorter since 4th? I'd argue not. Furthermore, time is just time - it can (and should) be managed by the points level the players are playing. Time is only undesirable if it's time wasted/being bored, and if the game is fun, then I'm not wasting my time or being bored with it, regardless of the specific mechanics at play.


For me the game is much shorter than it was in previous editions. Also, I found a lot of the old randomness to be a negative player experience which I find boring so...

For your last point, as Mezomorki points out, "fun" is subjective. Sometimes, a player may want the wargame to be a WARgame, where the contest of wits in the military mileu with Clausewitzian friction and fog-of-war is rather the point.


I think the ultimate point is that what people view as a "wargame" is very subjective. Warhammer 40k 9th edition is very much a wargame to me even if you believe otherwise.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/27 23:05:49


Post by: CEO Kasen


I came to the conclusion that 40K has a Street Fighter problem.

40K 9th is not a game without depth and strategy; there are decisions to be made and tactics to use at very high levels of play. The problem is that before you get to the point where you can make interesting decisions, you have to wade through a series of processes that are heavily abstracted and so increasingly Byzantine that by the end of the edition it'll make the Corpus Juris Civilis look like a book of knock-knock jokes. Otherwise, you just get blown away by the guy who knows the button combination for the Hyper Combo X Pelvis Neptune Finish.

But of course, a game of Street Fighter takes like four minutes, not three hours.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 00:03:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Costs a lot less, too.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 01:35:45


Post by: CEO Kasen


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Costs a lot less, too.


That is a whole different glistening stain on 40K's staggering metric orgy of problems.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 04:12:22


Post by: Unit1126PLL


If "rolling 1s" is an NPE, then wargaming may not be your game.

It may ruin things for you, but it never did for me. I took it as a lesson about my bad decision making, and in future games took steps to mitigate the consequences of "rolling a one".

Chain of Command literally has a table called "Bad Things Happen", and I love that game. Perhaps the difference is that, for me, when a Bad Thing Happens, it is not automatically an NPE but rather an expected challenge in warfare - which is what wargames are trying to abstract/emulate.

A wargame in which Bad Things Cannot Happen is just a game, leaving the war out.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 04:30:33


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If "rolling 1s" is an NPE, then wargaming may not be your game.

It may ruin things for you, but it never did for me. I took it as a lesson about my bad decision making, and in future games took steps to mitigate the consequences of "rolling a one".

Chain of Command literally has a table called "Bad Things Happen", and I love that game. Perhaps the difference is that, for me, when a Bad Thing Happens, it is not automatically an NPE but rather an expected challenge in warfare - which is what wargames are trying to abstract/emulate.

A wargame in which Bad Things Cannot Happen is just a game, leaving the war out.

I think it's fair for different people to feel differently about the types of randomness we're discussing in this thread. For me, having a round of shooting go badly or having my opponent screen out the area I wanted to deepstrike into is an "expected challenge" that keeps the game interesting. Getting stuck in a ditch is more of an annoyance because failing your parkour test just isn't very interesting (to me) to imagine and takes away my opportunities to fail at more interesting dice rolls like shooting my pew pew lasers and chopping guys up with my lightning swords.

It's great that you can enjoy getting stuck in a ditch or having your deepstrikers randomly wiped out while attempting a mathematically sound deepstrike, but you can understand why that sentiment isn't universal, right? I think most of us are here for the cool weapons and the fighting; not so much the vehicle suspension problems and the failed orbital entries.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 04:35:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I understand. I just think that is taking the war out of the game, and taking tactics out of the game.

You made a CHOICE to cross that ditch. If your opponent *forced* that choice on you, then you got outmaneuvered. Now you feel how Napoleon felt when the British soldiers laying on the reverse slope stood up.

Similarly, if you brought zero tools to mitigate the existence of said ditch, then that's a CHOICE you made. Bet you feel a bit silly showing up at that river-crossing without any ability to cross that river, eh XXX Corps?

If you crossed that ditch on your own without your opponent's input, well, lesson learned, stop wandering around doing nothing I guess and maneuver against your opponent.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 04:52:46


Post by: Racerguy180


Wyldhunt -

But then that's why you take the risk. You didn't HAVE to deepstrike, you chose to do an action that has a possibility of failing to do the thing you wanted it to. You could've been more conservative or put even more in deepstrike. But that's a player choice thing and not necessarily something that the dice decided 100%.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 04:53:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yes, exactly.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 04:54:23


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I understand. I just think that is taking the war out of the game, and taking tactics out of the game.

Going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's unintentional, but the way you keep saying that comes across as pretty condescending. Like, "I play real war games. Ones with tactics. Not this borish, unsophisticated peasant stuff you're into." Just because we don't agree with you or don't like the specifics of certain mechanics doesn't mean that we're not fans of tactical decision making.


You made a CHOICE to cross that ditch. If your opponent *forced* that choice on you, then you got outmaneuvered. Now you feel how Napoleon felt when the British soldiers laying on the reverse slope stood up.

In a system with punishing difficult terrain rules, standing near a ditch is a solid move; no disagreement there. However, 40k (especially on certain tables or with certain armies) doesn't always give you a huge variety of equally valid maneuvering options. Oftentimes, the mathematically best tactical decision is to run straight at the enemy ditch be darned. And when said ditch occasionally means that your melee unit stands around waiting to be killed instead of attacking, that kind of sucks. You made the smart play, and the rules punished you for it anyway.

I'm sure we can agree that not every melee army player to get stuck in a crater was simply "outmaneuvered," right? Intelligent people can decide to go through the crater and end up rolling snake eyes on their dt test, and it's understandable that that they might not be thrilled by that experience. Right?

Similarly, if you brought zero tools to mitigate the existence of said ditch, then that's a CHOICE you made. Bet you feel a bit silly showing up at that river-crossing without any ability to cross that river, eh XXX Corps?

I mean, I took dozer blades every chance I got because of how much I hated getting immobilized on terrain. Which basically translates to my experience with dt tests being so frustrating that I was willing to start the game X points down if it meant I didn't have to deal with that annoying mechanic. But when your army's only dedicated transport is the size of a wave serpent and most common types of terrain are difficult terrain, you're going to find yourself getting stuck on a rock every now and again. And I don't recall ever feeling that getting randomly immobilized added to my game experience; it felt too arbitrary.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Wyldhunt -

But then that's why you take the risk. You didn't HAVE to deepstrike, you chose to do an action that has a possibility of failing to do the thing you wanted it to. You could've been more conservative or put even more in deepstrike. But that's a player choice thing and not necessarily something that the dice decided 100%.

I mean, depending on the edition and the unit, opting not to deepstrike a unit can be essentially the same as opting to not use that unit at all. You don't generally see storm troopers jogging across the table or even riding in a transport because it's too likely that they'll get killed before they can get the most out of their guns. Blood letters love their deepstriking blood letter bombs in part because they're not especially good at surviving the walk across the table. Even terminators, at certain points in time, considered deepstriking basically mandatory because they were too slow, expensive, and good at melee to waste time trying to walk their way to combat.

Often times, not deepstriking the unit is kind of a false choice. Deepstriking is the "correct" (read: most likely to result in a positive outcome) way to deploy the unit. But the old deepstrike rules meant that you'd occasionally lose that unit just because. Which many of us feel was an unsatisfying experience.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 05:07:23


Post by: Insectum7


Risk-reward is good. The old Deep Strike rules were a bit too punishing though.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 05:51:01


Post by: Galas


For me the biggest problem with 9th are the missions. They are so boring so fast. But I didn't liked ITC missions in 8th and thats what 9th missions are. For many people they are perfect.

For me, the perfect mission design was achieved in the last iteration of Maelstrom of War in 8th.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 06:26:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The last Chapter Approved book before Chapter Approved turned into a tournament-centric patch everyone has to pay for contained a wealth of fun new missions.

The missions were varied and interesting, had different objectives beyond the same 4-8 markers in slightly different places on the board that all score in exactly the same way, and the game wasn't primarily focused on secondary objectives (ha!).



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 07:17:24


Post by: Jidmah


Assuming anyone is actually looking for a solution, I have found that the 9th edition open war deck actually plays and feels very similar to the C2019 eternal war missions if you skip the sudden death part.

For those who aren't looking for solutions, don't bother answering.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 07:23:15


Post by: Blackie


Wyldhunt wrote:


Often times, not deepstriking the unit is kind of a false choice. Deepstriking is the "correct" (read: most likely to result in a positive outcome) way to deploy the unit. But the old deepstrike rules meant that you'd occasionally lose that unit just because. Which many of us feel was an unsatisfying experience.


A unit that becomes too powerful thanks to its access to deepstrike was (is?) also very unsatisfying experience for the opponent.

I hated when a cheap squad with a few meltas appeared and instant killed my centerpiece model for example, and I wished that the chance of being destroyed by mishaps was pretty higher to counter how effective the combo was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Risk-reward is good. The old Deep Strike rules were a bit too punishing though.


To me it was the opposite, the old mechanics was too rewarding and in fact abused. Too punishing for me means 50% odds to get killed by mishap if you decide to deepstrike something.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 08:13:13


Post by: Eldarsif


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If "rolling 1s" is an NPE, then wargaming may not be your game.

It may ruin things for you, but it never did for me. I took it as a lesson about my bad decision making, and in future games took steps to mitigate the consequences of "rolling a one".

Chain of Command literally has a table called "Bad Things Happen", and I love that game. Perhaps the difference is that, for me, when a Bad Thing Happens, it is not automatically an NPE but rather an expected challenge in warfare - which is what wargames are trying to abstract/emulate.

A wargame in which Bad Things Cannot Happen is just a game, leaving the war out.


Maybe fun gaming is not your thing.

Now that we've got the Union Standard jabs out of the way, let's continue.

You are mischaracterizing what I said. We already have failures in this game that we try to mitigate and to imply otherwise is just dishonest. You should know that. The difference is whether extra layers are useful or not. I disagree with that, but for all I know you would want to roll a 1 in the beginning of the game and give your army cholera making you auto-lose(since we are at the level of mischaracterizing what we are saying) for the sake of a "real battlefield". That's ignoring the fact that difficult and dangerous terrain in the old editions highly mischaracterized that we are dealing with the armory of the 41st century that should be able to handle a crater or two. I am beginning to seriously think you want to play a WW1/WW2 game more than Warhammer 40.000, which I highly encourage btw as there are some good games out there.

Ultimately what people want is very different. You want some sort of a reality simulator and others want a streamlined wargame, because convoluted games for the sake of being convoluted tend to be bad games and a grind in my - as well as many other's - experience. You disagree with that, but that in no way makes you right. Just means we have differing opinions on it.

However, I am all for improving your game. Have you thought of playing Bolt Action or some historical reenactment wargames like Flames of War? They do sound like they are designed more for you, much more than fantasy oriented games like Warhammer and similar games.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 08:13:35


Post by: Insectum7


 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Risk-reward is good. The old Deep Strike rules were a bit too punishing though.


To me it was the opposite, the old mechanics was too rewarding and in fact abused. Too punishing for me means 50% odds to get killed by mishap if you decide to deepstrike something.

Drop Pods could be seen as abusive, I'd agree with that. But standard scatter DS? I rarely saw it because it was too risky, tbh.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 08:23:23


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Insectum7 wrote:
Drop Pods could be seen as abusive, I'd agree with that. But standard scatter DS? I rarely saw it because it was too risky, tbh.

Gotta say "minimum melter/plasma squads deepstriking" used to be one of the more fun/wonky army types I played with my Guard in 3rd or 4th. It was comically strong, given how random it was, but it mostly worked because the table had much less terrain on it and the objective was basically "kill your enemy".


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 12:37:21


Post by: Mezmorki


Wyldhunt wrote:

In a system with punishing difficult terrain rules, standing near a ditch is a solid move; no disagreement there. However, 40k (especially on certain tables or with certain armies) doesn't always give you a huge variety of equally valid maneuvering options. Oftentimes, the mathematically best tactical decision is to run straight at the enemy ditch be darned. And when said ditch occasionally means that your melee unit stands around waiting to be killed instead of attacking, that kind of sucks. You made the smart play, and the rules punished you for it anyway.

I'm sure we can agree that not every melee army player to get stuck in a crater was simply "outmaneuvered," right? Intelligent people can decide to go through the crater and end up rolling snake eyes on their dt test, and it's understandable that that they might not be thrilled by that experience. Right?


This is where I think an over-reliance on odds & probability cause problems - and can lead to frustration.

From a discrete perspective, there are two outcomes to the DT roll. Either (1) your tank gets through just fine or (2) it gets stuck and immobilized. Yes, one of those outcomes is more likely. But from a tactical decision standpoint you need to consider what happens in both cases as if they had an equal chance of happening. If someone's whole strategy for success and use of the unit hinges on "not rolling a 1" then I'd argue that a mistake was made earlier in the planning process. The unit was deployed wrong out of position, or else the opponent moved in a manner you didn't expect prompting a bigger redeployment for the vehicle etc. Treating the possible outcomes as equally valid means you need a contingency plan for both cases. That a vehicle can get stuck prompts a further layer of questions: what do I plan to do if it does get stuck? What's my plan B? Can it get stuck in a position where it can still provide cover fire? All this adds to the depth of the gameplay.

From a lore/realism perspective - Short of drilling a hole in the table to make a deep crater, it's hard to represent how deep such a crater might be. Or how much tangled wreckage or other unexploded ordinance (or booby traps) might be lurking in the crater. Any of those things could entangle a vehicle.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 12:55:59


Post by: Rihgu


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I understand. I just think that is taking the war out of the game, and taking tactics out of the game.

You made a CHOICE to cross that ditch. If your opponent *forced* that choice on you, then you got outmaneuvered. Now you feel how Napoleon felt when the British soldiers laying on the reverse slope stood up.

Similarly, if you brought zero tools to mitigate the existence of said ditch, then that's a CHOICE you made. Bet you feel a bit silly showing up at that river-crossing without any ability to cross that river, eh XXX Corps?

If you crossed that ditch on your own without your opponent's input, well, lesson learned, stop wandering around doing nothing I guess and maneuver against your opponent.


That's all well and good, but with pick up games you don't know you're going to be at a river-crossing until you've written your list and are deploying your models. Besides, even if you always assumed you'd be crossing a river and always brought tools to mitigate that, in 7th edition at least you could only bring it from 17% to 3% with dozer blades. What kind of commander just always has dozer blades on their tank!? That sounds like a nightmare. But, luckily my Chaos Lord is a pragmatic one, he left his power sword at home to compensate for the strategic cost of outfitting his 3 tanks with dozer blades just in case they came across rough terrain. Let's hope lady luck is with us today and we don't hit that 3% chance of "should've brought the sword".

Back in 5th/6th/7th I never really felt like there were choices regarding terrain. You deployed your units in terrain because if you didn't they'd get evaporated. It wasn't a tactical choice "oh, I'll take the higher chance of surviving for the chance of rolling a 1 moving through it", it was "I literally have to do this to even use this unit". Your vehicles similarly usually had a piece of terrain that going around would take 2+ turns, so you *had* to drive through for your vehicle to have any effect on the game.
"Oh, but you CHOSE to deploy the vehicle at a point where there would be terrain impacting their effectiveness", well, not really. What I did was I saw that if I deployed this vehicle in the corner away from the terrain it would have 0 impact on the game until maybe turn 3 if I was lucky and the opponent made mistakes moving closer to it. In order to have my vehicle do anything here I had to deploy it behind a crater it would have to move through to bring it's guns to bear.

Not really sure what the lessons are there? Play against opponents with weaker guns so I don't have to deploy in cover? Convince my opponent to play on a larger table with no limit on game rounds? I'm sure what you're saying applies to games that are not 40k 5th/6th/7th (I can't speak to other editions, maybe their dozer blades did more, or cost less, or had more turns or bigger tables or less terrain), but within the structure of 40k there aren't really lessons to be learned from "rolling 1s". Just frustration that the structure of the game made you act a certain way and then punished you for it.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 13:22:37


Post by: Mezmorki


Rihgu wrote:
.... but within the structure of 40k there aren't really lessons to be learned from "rolling 1s". Just frustration that the structure of the game made you act a certain way and then punished you for it.


I think there is a tension playing out here and in the design ethos of 8th/9th edition versus earlier editions (thinking specifically 5th and earlier).

8th & 9th has taken the approach of giving the players a high level of "control" over the flow and outcome of the game. Much of the modern design conventions hinge on doing things to mitigate or remove risk from the game and keep players in control. The vast numbers of stratagems and auras and other effects that allow players to re-roll dice or avoid certain bad outcomes, or ensure success of others is evidence. And, I think people would agree, that a large part of the tactics of 9th edition has to do with how you use these tools and special abilities to minimize risk and retain more control over the outcomes.

The extreme end of designing for control are combinatorial abstracts like chess and go. No luck (other than who goes first), no variable setups, no asymmetric forces, fixed victory triggers, etc. Clearly, this style of game emphasizes player skills and knowledge - especially considering the vast decision spaces created by a game like chess or go. The skillful play lies in predicting and visualizing your way through this vast decision space.

The above emphasis on player "control" is much different I feel from the ethos surrounding the design of earlier editions. I don't think earlier versions of the game were intended to be taken as competitively as it has become. Yes, there have been GT's for a long time and people making min-maxed power lists forever. But that's a consequence of what the players are bringing and wanting out of the game rather than what the game itself was trying to do.

I think the ethos of older editions was far more interested in telling a story and creating "drama" and unexpected situations that resulted from the "chaos of war." No plan survives contact with the enemy, etc. People didn't play Orks back in 2nd edition because they wanted to be ultra competitive. They played them because Orks were hilarious and every other thing you did required rolling on some ridiculous table to see if some grotling disaster occurred.

This isn't to say that older editions lacked tactics, but rather that they had less control baked into the design. In 9th edition, high degrees of control push the game towards optimization. What's the optimal army list, the optimal deployment approach (given static objectives and increasing interest on symmetrical tables), the optimal firing order, etc. Like with combinatorial abstracts, there is a sense that there is a "solution" to any given situation.

In older editions, players were more along for a narrative, dramatic ride. You knew going into a game that *bad stuff* was going to randomly happen to you, and you just hoped a bit more bad stuff would happen to your opponent than to you. But to be sure there were tactics in the game, but these emanated from having to make the best choice you could under sub-optimal circumstances and in response to unforeseen events upsetting "the plan." It was a game of managing contingencies in the face of uncertainty, rather than of executing and honing a tight line of play.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 13:27:34


Post by: Rihgu


Spoiler:
 Mezmorki wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
.... but within the structure of 40k there aren't really lessons to be learned from "rolling 1s". Just frustration that the structure of the game made you act a certain way and then punished you for it.


I think there is a tension playing out here and in the design ethos of 8th/9th edition versus earlier editions (thinking specifically 5th and earlier).

8th & 9th has taken the approach of giving the players a high level of "control" over the flow and outcome of the game. Much of the modern design conventions hinge on doing things to mitigate or remove risk from the game and keep players in control. The vast numbers of stratagems and auras and other effects that allow players to re-roll dice or avoid certain bad outcomes, or ensure success of others is evidence. And, I think people would agree, that a large part of the tactics of 9th edition has to do with how you use these tools and special abilities to minimize risk and retain more control over the outcomes.

The extreme end of designing for control are combinatorial abstracts like chess and go. No luck (other than who goes first), no variable setups, no asymmetric forces, fixed victory triggers, etc. Clearly, this style of game emphasizes player skills and knowledge - especially considering the vast decision spaces created by a game like chess or go. The skillful play lies in predicting and visualizing your way through this vast decision space.

The above emphasis on player "control" is much different I feel from the ethos surrounding the design of earlier editions. I don't think earlier versions of the game were intended to be taken as competitively as it has become. Yes, there have been GT's for a long time and people making min-maxed power lists forever. But that's a consequence of what the players are bringing and wanting out of the game rather than what the game itself was trying to do.

I think the ethos of older editions was far more interested in telling a story and creating "drama" and unexpected situations that resulted from the "chaos of war." No plan survives contact with the enemy, etc. People didn't play Orks back in 2nd edition because they wanted to be ultra competitive. They played them because Orks were hilarious and every other thing you did required rolling on some ridiculous table to see if some grotling disaster occurred.

This isn't to say that older editions lacked tactics, but rather that they had less control baked into the design. In 9th edition, high degrees of control push the game towards optimization. What's the optimal army list, the optimal deployment approach (given static objectives and increasing interest on symmetrical tables), the optimal firing order, etc. Like with combinatorial abstracts, there is a sense that there is a "solution" to any given situation.

In older editions, players were more along for a narrative, dramatic ride. You knew going into a game that *bad stuff* was going to randomly happen to you, and you just hoped a bit more bad stuff would happen to your opponent than to you. But to be sure there were tactics in the game, but these emanated from having to make the best choice you could under sub-optimal circumstances and in response to unforeseen events upsetting "the plan." It was a game of managing contingencies.

I agree with basically everything here, and it all matches up well with my first post in this thread (to summarize: I play WHFB 8th edition solo because less control, I play modern games against other players because both of us have more control).
Neither design is good or bad, just more suited for certain things imho. Playing against other players with the older ethos has always been a frustrating experience for me. Playing against other players with the new ethos has also been frustrating, but only because I play Chaos Space Marines


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 13:39:55


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Rihgu wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I understand. I just think that is taking the war out of the game, and taking tactics out of the game.

You made a CHOICE to cross that ditch. If your opponent *forced* that choice on you, then you got outmaneuvered. Now you feel how Napoleon felt when the British soldiers laying on the reverse slope stood up.

Similarly, if you brought zero tools to mitigate the existence of said ditch, then that's a CHOICE you made. Bet you feel a bit silly showing up at that river-crossing without any ability to cross that river, eh XXX Corps?

If you crossed that ditch on your own without your opponent's input, well, lesson learned, stop wandering around doing nothing I guess and maneuver against your opponent.


That's all well and good, but with pick up games you don't know you're going to be at a river-crossing until you've written your list and are deploying your models. Besides, even if you always assumed you'd be crossing a river and always brought tools to mitigate that, in 7th edition at least you could only bring it from 17% to 3% with dozer blades. What kind of commander just always has dozer blades on their tank!? That sounds like a nightmare. But, luckily my Chaos Lord is a pragmatic one, he left his power sword at home to compensate for the strategic cost of outfitting his 3 tanks with dozer blades just in case they came across rough terrain. Let's hope lady luck is with us today and we don't hit that 3% chance of "should've brought the sword".

Back in 5th/6th/7th I never really felt like there were choices regarding terrain. You deployed your units in terrain because if you didn't they'd get evaporated. It wasn't a tactical choice "oh, I'll take the higher chance of surviving for the chance of rolling a 1 moving through it", it was "I literally have to do this to even use this unit". Your vehicles similarly usually had a piece of terrain that going around would take 2+ turns, so you *had* to drive through for your vehicle to have any effect on the game.
"Oh, but you CHOSE to deploy the vehicle at a point where there would be terrain impacting their effectiveness", well, not really. What I did was I saw that if I deployed this vehicle in the corner away from the terrain it would have 0 impact on the game until maybe turn 3 if I was lucky and the opponent made mistakes moving closer to it. In order to have my vehicle do anything here I had to deploy it behind a crater it would have to move through to bring it's guns to bear.

Not really sure what the lessons are there? Play against opponents with weaker guns so I don't have to deploy in cover? Convince my opponent to play on a larger table with no limit on game rounds? I'm sure what you're saying applies to games that are not 40k 5th/6th/7th (I can't speak to other editions, maybe their dozer blades did more, or cost less, or had more turns or bigger tables or less terrain), but within the structure of 40k there aren't really lessons to be learned from "rolling 1s". Just frustration that the structure of the game made you act a certain way and then punished you for it.


You know, it's ironic, I just played my first game of 4th edition in a long time just last night.

And the biggest difference is LETHALITY. Deploying into terrain isn't mandatory - it does save you some losses, but you won't immediately be evaporated off the board wholesale. I played a Chimera mechanized company into foot-horde Orks, and both sides had more than half their lists left at the end of the game despite some fairly brutal combat in the middle of the board. I did lose but that's fine. The things that helped the problems you ascribe are:

1) Abstract terrain. Woods blocked line of sight (more than a few inches in). Being "behind" a wood actually helped you, rather than just being in it. Being behind a ruin helped you - just like 9th, except touching the base didn't immediately render your unit targetable (so you could deploy along the inside wall, then pop out.

2) Vehicle weapon arcs helped the Orks, and armor/armor facings helped the Imperial Guard.

3) The lethality was simply lower. A guard squad with 8 Lasguns firing could only shoot 12" if they moved and even at maximum output, you got 16 lasgun shots and a piddling amount of fire from your other weapons. Nowadays? Twice as many shots, you can move and shoot with no penalty, the wound table is less generous (wound T5 on 5s instead of 6s), you can charge after shooting rapid-fire weapons to do even more damage / finish people off, and the squad is cheaper (base squad of guardsmen is 60 points in 4th plus the sergeant actually costs points). A Chimera with 6 shots (Multi-Laser and Heavy Bolter) was a LOT of firepower for a dedicated transport.

4) Scoring at the end of the game, rather than progressive scoring, meant maneuver was more flexible. Instead of just blobbing onto objectives and staying there, squads could leave objectives to accomplish a mission, then return to it. Vehicles could, indeed, spend 2 turns moving 24" without shooting to get around terrain, and still have 4 more turns to participate in the game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 14:44:05


Post by: Mezmorki


^^^^ What Unit1126PLL said...

The growing lethality of the game is insidious and has a lot of impact on the play.

The mission design is also really a driver for strategy and tactics. With the current matched play missions and scoring, you're generally needing to contest points ASAP. It's a rush game for the most part, and in this situation spending an extra turn driving around terrain could be really costly if it means you cant contest a point that turn. With scoring at the end, you have much more leeway for when you push onto objectives.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 14:59:42


Post by: Rihgu


Scoring at the end also pushed for more deadly lists or unkillable lists. If you can just focus on killing your opponent and just need to stand on the points at the end to win the objective itself matters far less. Same if all you need to do is stand on the objective the entire game and survive.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:00:55


Post by: Daedalus81


 Mezmorki wrote:
^^^^ What Unit1126PLL said...

The growing lethality of the game is insidious and has a lot of impact on the play.

The mission design is also really a driver for strategy and tactics. With the current matched play missions and scoring, you're generally needing to contest points ASAP. It's a rush game for the most part, and in this situation spending an extra turn driving around terrain could be really costly if it means you cant contest a point that turn. With scoring at the end, you have much more leeway for when you push onto objectives.



This is a misconception that gets some people into trouble. "If I don't push straight for objectives I will lose."

What ends up happening is they wind up making choices that get units killed - especially vs DE. You may not score, but you have an additional opportunity to respond before they score as well. As long as your opponent isn't dragging in 15 points and you're getting 5 or 10 then you still have an opportunity to turn the game.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:02:37


Post by: Insectum7


 Mezmorki wrote:
^^^^ What Unit1126PLL said...

The growing lethality of the game is insidious and has a lot of impact on the play.

The mission design is also really a driver for strategy and tactics. With the current matched play missions and scoring, you're generally needing to contest points ASAP. It's a rush game for the most part, and in this situation spending an extra turn driving around terrain could be really costly if it means you cant contest a point that turn. With scoring at the end, you have much more leeway for when you push onto objectives.

I second/third this


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:08:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Rihgu wrote:
Scoring at the end also pushed for more deadly lists or unkillable lists. If you can just focus on killing your opponent and just need to stand on the points at the end to win the objective itself matters far less. Same if all you need to do is stand on the objective the entire game and survive.


Right but if lethality is low enough that 50% of the opponent's army (roughly, could be 30-60%) is guaranteed to be alive no matter how killy you are, then you had better maneuver with those objectives in mind - or else lose the game to only 30% of the enemy force, because they got done what needed to be done and you didn't.

This gets back to the whole idea of "making it's points back". A unit should almost never make it's points back, and certainly NOT in one turn.

After all, armies are just collections of units, so if every unit needs to make its points back, then an entire army needs to make its points back. If that needs to happen ALL IN ONE TURN, well...


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:14:21


Post by: Rihgu


I personally think the idea of "making it's points back" is a fallacy and not a standard to judge a unit by. Even if it does. It's all about impact on the game. If a 100 point unit of melta takes down a 200 chimera+unit inside in the back corner of the board nowhere near any objectives, sure the unit made it's points back but did not have an impact on the actual game.

What made the lethality between 4th and 5th vastly increase? Not sure if you have the ability to answer this, Unit, but maybe somebody in the thread does.
In 5th it was extremely common for my army to get blown away by guardsmen and especially guardsmen vets, and leman russes. Did Guard not have FRFSRF in 4th?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:32:51


Post by: Tawnis


 Mezmorki wrote:


(1) Deep striking & scattering. Deep striking is, I feel, part of your strategic level play about how you use your forces to accomplish the mission objective. Where you place deep striking is critical. In older editions, the fact that deep striking units could scatter makes for more interesting decisions. Where you place a unit and how “risky” or aggressive you are in placing it was a serious consideration. If you got too greedy and scattered onto enemy forces, you could lose the whole unit! There was more nuance and “good ambiguity” in the placement.

(2) Difficult terrain & random move distances. Similar to the above. With movement in difficult terrain been variable, you can’t calculate with certainty how close you’ll be able to get, for example, to an objective or within range of an opponent. When you don’t move as far as you want, it an force you into a sub-optimal situation and can even prompt re-assessment of the overall “plan.”

(3) Must shoot the closest enemy unit (from 4th edition). This added a level of tactical nuance and interplay between your units and their relative positioning. By forcing an opponent to shoot at a certain closer unit over another, added a level of decision making to your force movement.

(4) Assaulting & random charge distances. This is a case of randomness that I actually don’t like that much, because on one hand, a very lucky roll (11 or 12” charge) can enable an assault unit to grossly outperform. Conversely, an unlucky roll can leave a unit stranded in the open. This is a case where core unit functionality is potentially undermined. Imagine if when you made a shooting attack you took 6” of the range of all weapons and then added a 2d6” instead. It’s a bridge too far IMHO.

(5) Variable game length - this is a risk-reward element that ties into the overall strategic level of the game. It the forces the player to at the very least consider contingencies. If you press early on an objective, and the game goes long, can you hold it if it’s an exposed spot? If you wait to move, and it ends early, will you miss your chance? Is there a middle solution to hedge your bets? It injects a bit of a strategic gamble element to the later turns of the game.

Obviously, my examples above highlight a preference towards older editions - but even then sometimes older editions swung too far (but newer editions swung too far the other way). Deep striking for example was, IMHO, overly punitive when you lost an entire unit due to an insanely unlucky roll. That doesn’t feel very ‘fun’ or fair. I think therefore many of these design topics there’s a middle ground to strike.

I’m curious what others think!



I liked a lot of these things from the older editions, however they did have some serious problems. That being said, I would rather have seen them modified than removed personally. For example:\

1) OG Deep Striking was WAY too punishing for bad rolls. Oups I rolled bad, their goes 1/3rd of my 1000 point army, I guess I lose. Oh, I rolled 2" off the table, I guess my guys are too dumb to realize where the fight is and just walk over here. Nobody likes those situations. However, I think that the random element to Deep Strike was really good. If the rules changed to say loosing a model, or say, taking a MW on a roll of 1 if you Deep Strike into Terrain or something, I could see that still punishing a failed Deep Strike, but not being so game breaking.

2) Yeah, I miss this. Was another another way to make infantry more/les mobile too. Light Infantry like Scouts/Kroot got bonuses to moving through cover (I think there was an edition where Heavy Infantry like Terminators got reduced move through cover, but I can't recall for sure.)

3) I think I liked this rule best when it required a Ld check. (Not sure if it always did, but they way you've written I assume not.) However, I think it should be changed a bit. For instance, if there are two enemy units only 1 or two inches apart, you should be able to decided, where as if a melee unit is barreling down on you, you should have to test to shoot the big guns behind them. I think applying a range option to this would make sense. You have to shoot the closest enemy unit within 12", or you can shoot anything if there are none. This would add more to your comment about forcing movement as well.

4) Yeah, I actually agree here too, however if you played around with the effective range of charging, you'd basically have to re-balance everything. Personally, if I had to re-vamp the system, I'd go back to the only charge if you didn't shoot rule to represent them taking that time to keep running for their target and change the distance to the units M+D6, but then have them actually move up even if they failed the charge. It's always felt weird to me that it was an all or nothing thing.

5) I miss this too, it's not like real battles were "okay we'll fight for 5 hours and not a moment longer." (Unless of course a cease fire was declared or some such).

One other thing I would like to see back that I think would effect this would be the changing of ways to score VP. I like the concept they have of main objective with multiple side objectives, but it feels somewhat lacking. I'm not quite sure exactly what it is, but I feel like every mission is now "get the things" and either, "kill the dudes, or get the things more". When I look back at older missions, they were essentially the same thing as well, but for some reason, they felt more varied. I get that this is a better design for things like tournaments and such to make it even, but I think they should take a page out of their design philosophy for the new Kill Team and make wildly differing missions with varied win cons / deployments and use the secondary system to supplement it. You see a bit of this in the Crusade missions, but I think they could go way further. When I play my army, I know how I'm going to play it in nearly every game because they are so similar, but if the missions varied dramatically, you'd have to adjust your playstyle on the fly which I really miss having to do.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:33:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Guard did not have orders in 4th.

Squadrons did not exist in 4th.

Ordnance rules made vehicles that used them rare and powerful, and made their use a tactical decision rather than just "I blow you up with big gun because why not?"

Vehicles were less powerful.

Indirect fire cost points and didn't come stock.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:35:02


Post by: catbarf


Rihgu wrote:
Did Guard not have FRFSRF in 4th?


Nope, 5th is where Orders started, and simultaneously Guardsmen got cheaper.

At this point I think Unit, Insectum, and Mezmorki have covered my thoughts pretty well, but I'll add one more thing: While it was a frustrating, negative play experience to sometimes flub deep strike and lose a unit, I find it regularly frustrating to be in the position where either a unit can't come down anywhere useful because it's screened out by magical 9" no-touch shields, or a unit with 12" or 18" range can still drop exactly where it wants to be and effortlessly obliterate a star unit with perfect reliability. There was some fuzziness to the old deep strike where you could decide how much risk you were willing to accept; the shift towards more deterministic mechanics brings along its own set of frustrations.

Oh, and I don't know that scoring at the end necessarily made for a better play experience. Daedalus is right in that that's why we got leafblower and gunline lists. But I do think 9th leans too far in the other direction. Mixing progressive and at-the-end scoring in a mission pack, so you can't optimize for one or the other, might be a better compromise- but then the tournament players start complaining that they get screwed by the mission dice roll.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:41:17


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I could see a mix of some progressive and some end-of-game even in the same mission.

Like controlling no-man's-land throughout the battle gets some points, but so does achieving a hard-fought breakthrough to get the one in the enemy's DZ at the last moment.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:50:25


Post by: Galas


Most of the problems could be fixed with less lethality.

I like my games to be less lethal. For units to engage in firefights and resist for reinforcements, for meele to become a push between two forces.

Thats fixed at a 60% if you play a normal 9th list but just ignor all rerrolls and all bonuses to attacks, AP, to wound and to hit and just play with normal unit statlines and datasheets. Many characters lose their appeal of course but thats just a test to see how better 9th is with less lethality.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 15:55:06


Post by: Mezmorki


xRegarding scoring....

I've discussed this at length in prior threads, but I really dislike the matched play mission design in 9th. Every mission is essentially a minor variation on the same basic theme (progressive scoring each turn for holding control points, plus secondaries of your choosing). The missions aren't diverse enough, and I think it's important to have a diverse army list that can respond to a range of different mission objectives and needs. Any missions get boring when you play them over and over, so having a more fundamentally diverse pool is really important IMHO.

I'm 50% of the way through the mission designs for ProHammer. I catalogued all the mission objectives from past and current 40K editions and am coming up with a robust of way of, essentially, including most of them in the set. Missions are boiling down into 6 different archetypes - and essentially all the diversity of primary missions in say the 9th edition matched play missions fall into one archetype. There's an archetype for recon/board zone control missions, one for destroying (or defending) sets of certain types of objectives in a siege mission (e.g. pipelines or bunkers), one for searching for and recovering special assets, one or ambushes/breakthrough missions, and a retainer for more specialized one-off missions.

I'm also working on a way to structure the mission selection process similar to the Open War decks (which are pretty slick). There'd be a set of of primary missions/objective cards, which in turn might direct you to pull cards from other sets (e.g. deployment zones, special rules, etc.). Some of these missions would be asymmetric (one player as attacker or defender). There are about 6 core variations of control point missions depending on whether the scoring is progressive, end-of-game only, or threshold based (e.g. no turn limit, just a matter of getting to X-points first).

The other thing I've done with the mission design is that players ONLY consider scoring for secondary objectives in the event that players tie for primary objectives. This keeps the focus on the primary mission goal, but creates an interesting tension if it looks like neither player will accomplish the primary mission and you have to shift focus to considering secondary objectives. The ONLY secondary objectives are (a) kill the warlord (3 VP); (b) kill enemy forces (1-6 VPs depending on the percentage of total point value of units destroyed/neutralized); (c) keeping all enemies out of your deployment zone (3 VPs); (d) getting 1-3 of your own scoring models into the enemy deployment zone (1-3 VPs). These secondary objectives have been working super well so far when they've come up.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:05:24


Post by: Daedalus81


I think many people here need to be playing the beta Maelstrom rules. It feels like everyone is expecting the competitive missions to be a one size fits all and it will never be that. There are also missions in other books that have exactly what you guys are referencing:







Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:07:31


Post by: Tawnis


 Mezmorki wrote:
xRegarding scoring....

I've discussed this at length in prior threads, but I really dislike the matched play mission design in 9th. Every mission is essentially a minor variation on the same basic theme (progressive scoring each turn for holding control points, plus secondaries of your choosing). The missions aren't diverse enough, and I think it's important to have a diverse army list that can respond to a range of different mission objectives and needs. Any missions get boring when you play them over and over, so having a more fundamentally diverse pool is really important IMHO.

I'm also working on a way to structure the mission selection process similar to the Open War decks (which are pretty slick). There'd be a set of of primary missions/objective cards, which in turn might direct you to pull cards from other sets (e.g. deployment zones, special rules, etc.). Some of these missions would be asymmetric (one player as attacker or defender). There are about 6 core variations of control point missions depending on whether the scoring is progressive, end-of-game only, or threshold based (e.g. no turn limit, just a matter of getting to X-points first).

The other thing I've done with the mission design is that players ONLY consider scoring for secondary objectives in the event that players tie for primary objectives. This keeps the focus on the primary mission goal, but creates an interesting tension if it looks like neither player will accomplish the primary mission and you have to shift focus to considering secondary objectives. The ONLY secondary objectives are (a) kill the warlord (3 VP); (b) kill enemy forces (1-6 VPs depending on the percentage of total point value of units destroyed/neutralized); (c) keeping all enemies out of your deployment zone (3 VPs); (d) getting 1-3 of your own scoring models into the enemy deployment zone (1-3 VPs). These secondary objectives have been working super well so far when they've come up.


100% agree on the first point.

It's funny, I was just thinking about how I wish Night Fighting was still a thing and that it's crazy the in nearly infinite planetary biomes, we don't have some kind of weather effect system. Then I read this and remembered the open war decks are a thing. I should really pick those up.

Sometimes both armies aren't necessarily trying to achieve the same thing. So long as it's balanced, given each player a different primary objective could be interesting too. Then you could have the secondary's (while still taking a back seat) be a little more impactful that just being a tie breaker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think many people here need to be playing the beta Maelstrom rules. It feels like everyone is expecting the competitive missions to be a one size fits all and it will never be that. There are also missions in other books that have exactly what you guys are referencing:



That's Crusade though, which has always been a bit more flexible. I think they were referring more to Matched Play (I know I was).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:22:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah I was referring to pick up games.

Getting a crusade game here is more difficult.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:35:09


Post by: Daedalus81


Right, ok, then you would rate your happiness as increased if missions like that existed as part of the tournament rules so that when you got a pick up game they didn't shy away due to it being "something else".

It's certainly a difficult problem. Not everything like that will be balanced and it would be up to GW to codify it. Hmm.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:43:30


Post by: Insectum7


Rihgu wrote:


What made the lethality between 4th and 5th vastly increase? Not sure if you have the ability to answer this, Unit, but maybe somebody in the thread does.
In 5th it was extremely common for my army to get blown away by guardsmen and especially guardsmen vets, and leman russes. Did Guard not have FRFSRF in 4th?
Unit mentioned vehicle squadrons, but I'm going to mention Sternguard for my specific experience. Never before in a Marine army were so many high AP weapons able to be concentrated. Among a number of armies the amount of high AP weapons increased.

The other thing that happened was a return to TLOS, which made hiding units from opposing firepower much harder. More firepower with less cover means higher lethality.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:46:17


Post by: Tawnis


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Right, ok, then you would rate your happiness as increased if missions like that existed as part of the tournament rules so that when you got a pick up game they didn't shy away due to it being "something else".

It's certainly a difficult problem. Not everything like that will be balanced and it would be up to GW to codify it. Hmm.




For me, yes.

I may be in the minority here, but I much prefer games that are not 100% balanced. I like them to be close-ish sometimes, but since the nature of codex releases make some armies stronger than others anyway and not everyone being able to afford every single unit, it's not like we're every dealing with a perfect system to begin with. If I wanted to play a game that was 100% balanced, I'd break out my chess set, and even then, I think it's technically 52/48 for 1st turn advantage.

For me, much of the fun of a wargame is dealing with unpredictable events and having to react on the fly to things you don't expect. I'm not sure how well this system could be implemented into 40k, but I really like the mission design philosophy in the new Kill Team. You have a set pool of units, but it's more than you would take on any given mission. When you learn the mission you are assigned, you then pick the force you think is best equipped to deal with it and can select from special equipment (separate from points) to aid in dealing with specific challenges you will find in this mission. This would certainly increase setup time before games and such, but I think the trade off would be well worth it if we could get more unique and interesting matches.

I don't remember every game that I ran around grabbing things a little faster than my opponent. I remember matches where a small force of my Space Marines ambushed an Ork Convoy twice it's points value under the cover of a dust storm and crippled their advance before falling back with minimal casualties.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:58:15


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The main thing I want, which comes from more than just missions, is a lack of solvability.

This gets to the core of the thread, so I'll write on it at more length:

I want the game to be unsolvable. Un-optimizable. When you build your army in 9th, you're considering how to take/contest midboard objectives, and building around certain secondaries. The competitive wisdom is to build around 2, and then flex the 3rd based on opponent.

This means that, at gametime, you simply execute on that plan: roll forwards to contest midboard objectives, execute secondary objectives based on your pre-planned outline. It's very algorithmic.

It's also very "Strategic" in a sense (if you accept that strategy is "anything that happens pre-game not on the board).

But it isn't very tactical.

I'm reminded of a question from GW's Middle Earth design Q&A at the 2019 NOVA convention:
"When will you stop making <mission type X> in the tournament packet because it makes <army type Y> bad?"

The designer replied, rather brilliantly:
"We put those missions in there specifically to disincentivize building <army type Y>. We saw <army type Y> as being strong in <mission type Q> and still pretty strong in <mission type Z> so we designed <mission type X> in an attempt to force <army type Y> from going all-in on that build and instead balance their force a little better - or be prepared to accept losses when they encounter <type X>."

I'm not direct quoting, I'm paraphrasing, but the point stands for itself I hope.

Furthermore, terrain, enemy army composition, enemy maneuver capability/capacity, etc. should make each game unique and make it very difficult to build an army that algorithmically solves its way to victory through a combination of pre-identified factors.

EDIT:
In some ways, Warhammer 40k 9th is a "WE GO" gametype, a collision of pre-constructed plans with not terribly much room for innovation or battle-management decisions. (in comparison to other games such as Chain of Command, where you may not even know your full Army List until you show up at the table and roll some dice beforehand to determine support point allocation).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 16:58:49


Post by: Strg Alt


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Risk-reward is good. The old Deep Strike rules were a bit too punishing though.


To me it was the opposite, the old mechanics was too rewarding and in fact abused. Too punishing for me means 50% odds to get killed by mishap if you decide to deepstrike something.

Drop Pods could be seen as abusive, I'd agree with that. But standard scatter DS? I rarely saw it because it was too risky, tbh.


We did a lot of deepstriking back in the day. Especially near table edges. Balls of steel, man!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 17:05:41


Post by: Insectum7


 Strg Alt wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Risk-reward is good. The old Deep Strike rules were a bit too punishing though.


To me it was the opposite, the old mechanics was too rewarding and in fact abused. Too punishing for me means 50% odds to get killed by mishap if you decide to deepstrike something.

Drop Pods could be seen as abusive, I'd agree with that. But standard scatter DS? I rarely saw it because it was too risky, tbh.


We did a lot of deepstriking back in the day. Especially near table edges. Balls of steel, man!
I saw people try it occasionally, but golly was the rate of failure high. Personally I never fielded Terminators without a Sergeant somewhere with a Teleport Homer.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:08:32


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I understand. I just think that is taking the war out of the game, and taking tactics out of the game.

You made a CHOICE to cross that ditch. If your opponent *forced* that choice on you, then you got outmaneuvered. Now you feel how Napoleon felt when the British soldiers laying on the reverse slope stood up.

Similarly, if you brought zero tools to mitigate the existence of said ditch, then that's a CHOICE you made. Bet you feel a bit silly showing up at that river-crossing without any ability to cross that river, eh XXX Corps?

If you crossed that ditch on your own without your opponent's input, well, lesson learned, stop wandering around doing nothing I guess and maneuver against your opponent.


I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

It just seems to me like setting a different standard for a game we've decided to like than for a game we've decided to hate (or at least dislike in its current state).

And to be fair to you, I may be doing that thing I sometimes do, where ALL negative comments end up being attributed to anyone who post A negative comment. Sorry if I did that- it's just hard to remember which negative comments are coming from whom- there are a fair number of them in this thread, and a fair number of threads with similar ratios of positive to negative, so if I messed up here, no misrepresentation intended.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:30:41


Post by: Unit1126PLL


PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I understand. I just think that is taking the war out of the game, and taking tactics out of the game.

You made a CHOICE to cross that ditch. If your opponent *forced* that choice on you, then you got outmaneuvered. Now you feel how Napoleon felt when the British soldiers laying on the reverse slope stood up.

Similarly, if you brought zero tools to mitigate the existence of said ditch, then that's a CHOICE you made. Bet you feel a bit silly showing up at that river-crossing without any ability to cross that river, eh XXX Corps?

If you crossed that ditch on your own without your opponent's input, well, lesson learned, stop wandering around doing nothing I guess and maneuver against your opponent.


I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

It just seems to me like setting a different standard for a game we've decided to like than for a game we've decided to hate (or at least dislike in its current state).

And to be fair to you, I may be doing that thing I sometimes do, where ALL negative comments end up being attributed to anyone who post A negative comment. Sorry if I did that- it's just hard to remember which negative comments are coming from whom- there are a fair number of them in this thread, and a fair number of threads with similar ratios of positive to negative, so if I messed up here, no misrepresentation intended.


I mean, the issue for me (to repeat my last few posts) is those are all pre-game algorithmic decisions.

Stratagems, auras, and chapter-tactics are pre-game decisions made that execute algorithmically on the tabletop. "Put my men in aura to make them shoot well. If threat is big, put a pre-planned stratagem on them. If threat is small and numerous, put stratagem on a different unit." Chapter tactics is literally army-wide, so there's exactly zero decision-making except "which chapter am I playing?" which has 0 interaction with your opponent (and therefore isn't an informed, tactical decision in the face of the enemy).

The only influence your opponent's maneuver, shooting, hell, even existence has on the decision in your example is simply "are they one big unit or lots of little units?" In fact, your example is precisely what my last post was talking about, where the decisions made are largely pregame and in-game play is just executing those pre-made strategies.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:30:57


Post by: Insectum7


PenitentJake wrote:

I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

I guess I don't see that as a double standard at all because the two things you're comparing feel vastly different. One is a product of risk-reward choice upon interaction with terrain incurring self-inflicted harm. The other appears to be "combo stacking" in order to harm the other player.

Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:39:17


Post by: Canadian 5th


 DarkHound wrote:
You totally missed my point or you're being purposefully disingenuous. You can't plan for every result of every difficult terrain test. You also don't have infinite redundancy.

Yes, and...

It's a BAD thing if I spend 10 minutes making a plan for the turn, hit a 1/6 that bricks my movement (which I know will cascade into further failures), so I have to spend 10 minutes remeasuring and planning, only to hit another 1/36 to fail target priority at a critical point and have to spend 10 minutes recalculating my shooting phase.

How is this any different than if you low roll an attack sequence, have a psychic power fail or fail a charge? The issue seems to have more to do with your own slow planning than it does with the game.

I'm not even talking about events which render the game totally unworkable. That's a whole other issue. These kinds of tests create the possibility that you hit a 1/36 and lose the game through no fault of your own. Or even the extra turn randomness: as Wyldhunt said, plenty of armies, by design, had to dive objectives and lost if another turn was rolled. The whole game comes down to a 50/50 for some factions unless it's a significant mis-match in other areas, such as player skill.

Why is this bad? Is the only goal to win the game and have nothing go wrong?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:45:11


Post by: Tawnis


 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher. I swear I'm not bitter. XD


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:46:07


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:47:14


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Tawnis wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher.


TBF armies at that point in time with 200 + models didn't or shouldn't really have cared for most units beeing out of sightline anyways for a singular blast....

Otoh if you fielded a lot of arty as some armies could then yeah that became a bit of a slog.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:49:53


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tawnis wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher.


I get that it was onerous but this isn't a bad thing.

Spreading out like that has genuine on-table tactical consequences (for example, easier to brush terrain so your unit slows down, wider frontage to get contacted and locked up by enemy combat units so they can't be shot, models being out of range, etc. etc.).

People who did it routinely often didn't think about the other ramifications of it.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:53:09


Post by: catbarf


Insectum7 wrote:The other thing that happened was a return to TLOS, which made hiding units from opposing firepower much harder. More firepower with less cover means higher lethality.


Plus the change to the mechanics of cover. The old cover system meant that spamming high-AP firepower couldn't invalidate saves; in 5th Ed if you were in ruins you got your 4+ against all those plasma guns and lascannons that would otherwise splatter your Marines, and Guard could actually get saves against bolters. +1 to your save is a lot less impactful.

PenitentJake wrote:I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

It just seems to me like setting a different standard for a game we've decided to like than for a game we've decided to hate (or at least dislike in its current state).


Like the other guys said, the difference is that stacking an aura, a strat, and a chapter tactic is all a pre-game decision. Those are not an emergent combo that suddenly arises during gameplay. There's little decision-making involved- and usually, the best strategy is to stack those on your star unit(s), so spreading them out is a non-option to begin with. You don't spend CP to use shoot-twice on your chaff, you spend it to shoot-twice on the unit you've supercharged through auras and abilities.

Consider instead if flanking the enemy to establish crossfire gave you a bonus on your attack to ensure success against a particularly tough unit. Then that power amplification would be based on maneuver, punishing an opponent who was overly aggressive with their units but also potentially exposing you to greater risk if you're overextended. That would represent a moment-to-moment decision based on the current battlefield state (like how choosing whether to enter terrain that might immobilize you represents a tactical decision), rather than executing a pre-planned set of combos to maximize damage output.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:54:32


Post by: Tawnis


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher.


I get that it was onerous but this isn't a bad thing.

Spreading out like that has genuine on-table tactical consequences (for example, easier to brush terrain so your unit slows down, wider frontage to get contacted and locked up by enemy combat units so they can't be shot, models being out of range, etc. etc.).

People who did it routinely often didn't think about the other ramifications of it.


That's true. I didn't mind at all when playing at home with unlimited time, (as I said I loved how much more thematic it was) but when you only have a few hours to get in a game after work at a FLGS before closing time, it really sucked.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:58:05


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:58:59


Post by: Tawnis


 catbarf wrote:


Plus the change to the mechanics of cover. The old cover system meant that spamming high-AP firepower couldn't invalidate saves; in 5th Ed if you were in ruins you got your 4+ against all those plasma guns and lascannons that would otherwise splatter your Marines, and Guard could actually get saves against bolters. +1 to your save is a lot less impactful.


I actually much prefer cover this way TBH. If these anti-tanks weapons can pierce your ceramite armour, why can't they do so to the brick wall your crouching behind? Just because your armor can save you from small arms fire, cover does nothing? I personally house ruled cover modifying saves very similar to how it does now since all the way back in 3rd.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 18:59:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tawnis wrote:


That's true. I didn't mind at all when playing at home with unlimited time, (as I said I loved how much more thematic it was) but when you only have a few hours to get in a game after work at a FLGS before closing time, it really sucked.


Play a smaller game (say, 500-750 pts) where people could bring 60 models instead of 200


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:00:54


Post by: Tyran


Terrain wasn't that "tactical", at least not when it came to vehicles as many of them had ways to negate it. And the ones that didn't either sucked or could just sit at the other side of the map and bombard you.

Same with Deep Strike, no one used it unless they had the means to negate it, either with longer ranged weapons, drop pods or homing beacons.

I mean, I understand the potential for tactical play was there in the rulebook, but the codexes either had ways to ignore the rulebook or were bad because everyone else could ignore the rulebook, turning what on paper would be tactical decisions into pregame list-building decisions.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:01:36


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tawnis wrote:
 catbarf wrote:


Plus the change to the mechanics of cover. The old cover system meant that spamming high-AP firepower couldn't invalidate saves; in 5th Ed if you were in ruins you got your 4+ against all those plasma guns and lascannons that would otherwise splatter your Marines, and Guard could actually get saves against bolters. +1 to your save is a lot less impactful.


I actually much prefer cover this way TBH. If these anti-tanks weapons can pierce your ceramite armour, why can't they do so to the brick wall your crouching behind? Just because your armor can save you from small arms fire, cover does nothing? I personally house ruled cover modifying saves very similar to how it does now since all the way back in 3rd.


The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:01:52


Post by: Tawnis


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.


Well yeah, you're not facing a different army, just a different facet of it. They are meant to modify the army to emphasize their flavour/feel not change them completely. If Salamanders have a buff to their flamers, you may see them run more troops with that as appose to Imperial fists that would prefer gunlines because they are better with bolters. That's what I mean.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:05:15


Post by: PenitentJake


Did y'all not read what I wrote?

Let's say I'm playing SoB.

Some units (Battle Conclaves, Ministorum Priests, PE's) don't get <Order>

Now if I'm up against SM, and there are 2 units of Tacticals in the open, one in Cover, and unit of Gravis armoured troops in the open and one in cover. I mean, it seems smart to send the priest with my Arcos against a harder target- especially since I'll have the option of dropping Extremis Trigger Word (strat).

If I choose to go at the the tacticals in the open with a unit of 5 DCA's without a priest, what if I don't wipe out the tacticals, and they crush my DCA's and go on to score the game winning objective? I mean, it seems smart to send the priest with my Arcos against a harder target- especially since I'll have the option of dropping Extremis Trigger Word (strat) if the target is particularly hard, or particularly important to kill before they can score the objective they're holding. On the other hand, I could have sent the arcos with the DCA's and priest, which probably would get the job done, with the bonus that I may not even need the Trigger Word, thereby preserving my ability to say, Deadly Descent when I DS my Seraphim on the following turn.

in what universe was that a) a pregame decision (Unit) or b) not risk vs. reward (Insectum)?

As for aura bunching (Insectum), most 9th ed dexes buff a single unit in aura range, not EVERY unit in aura range (that was an 8th ed thing, and for the most part, it is being changed as new dexes drop).

Blast weapons in 9th, with minimum hits based on enemy unit size are still frightening to a dude who takes a unit of 10+ in order to maximize the impact of the aura buff. Perhaps not "Terrifying" in the same way as in the example you cite- but again, funny how you'll champion lethality in a version of the game you like and spit roast 9th because it's too lethal. I mean, I get it- it's a case of one unit being particularly lethal vs. most units being more lethal than expected... But then does that mean internal balance (another common complaint) is off in the version you prefer, and more consistent in 9th?

The point is that I can subject any version of the game to a similar degree of scrutiny to which 9th is frequently subjected, and I will find it just as problematic.

As for other games, their mechanics may very well be more resilient to scrutiny than GW products- my issue with them isn't mechanics. It's models.

Both Dust and Chain of Command are widely praised for their mechanics, and honestly, I don't even doubt that they are fabulous games. But I looked up both online yesterday just for fun.

I found 3 units for Dust that were interesting enough for me to put the effort into building and painting- there were some things that looked kinda sentinel/ dreadish; there was a unit of dudes with bat wings and there were some werewolves. Everything else bored me to tears.

In Chain of Command? Not a single model interested me. Not one.

And at that point, it doesn't really matter (to me, based on what I'm looking for in a game) how inexpensive the product is compared to GW or how much better the game may or may not be.

Edit: Improved the example of 9th ed tactics.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:06:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.


Well yeah, you're not facing a different army, just a different facet of it. They are meant to modify the army to emphasize their flavour/feel not change them completely. If Salamanders have a buff to their flamers, you may see them run more troops with that as appose to Imperial fists that would prefer gunlines because they are better with bolters. That's what I mean.


Right but none of that affects me. I'll have a plan to deal with them ahead of time. If I don't, that's not because it's impossible to do so, but rather because I simply didn't think of it. That's not the same thing as "in-game tactics" though, that's literally just "there's too many rules that if I knew, I could defeat, but I can't know them all"

which is bloat, in so many words.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:07:38


Post by: Tyran


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."


A flat save was a terrible way to interpret that though, it would have made more sense for cover to be a modifier to BS, as it was affecting aiming.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:07:51


Post by: Tawnis


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:


That's true. I didn't mind at all when playing at home with unlimited time, (as I said I loved how much more thematic it was) but when you only have a few hours to get in a game after work at a FLGS before closing time, it really sucked.


Play a smaller game (say, 500-750 pts) where people could bring 60 models instead of 200


Ture, but if you plan every game based around avoiding stupid things nobheads could do, you'd never get to play anything. I would actually like blast templates back, I was just saying that they did have their own issues.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:10:52


Post by: Tyran


Personally I would prefer 40k to move away from model based rules to unit based ones (like Apocalypse).

And the older blast rules were a quite bad example of model based rules. I would prefer blast weapons in which the point was hitting multiple units rather than multiple models.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:36:18


Post by: Tawnis


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.


Well yeah, you're not facing a different army, just a different facet of it. They are meant to modify the army to emphasize their flavour/feel not change them completely. If Salamanders have a buff to their flamers, you may see them run more troops with that as appose to Imperial fists that would prefer gunlines because they are better with bolters. That's what I mean.


Right but none of that affects me. I'll have a plan to deal with them ahead of time. If I don't, that's not because it's impossible to do so, but rather because I simply didn't think of it. That's not the same thing as "in-game tactics" though, that's literally just "there's too many rules that if I knew, I could defeat, but I can't know them all"

which is bloat, in so many words.


You can only plan ahead of time for so many things, the more options an army has the more dynamic it can be and the less sure you are of a pre-game battle plan based on what army you are up against. Bloat is problematic for sure, there's a fine balance, but I'd have Chapter Tactics over something like Stratagems any day. Sure they are far from perfect, but I was talking about the concept of sub factions having modified playstyles being a good thing, not necessarily their current implementation.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:36:38


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."


A flat save was a terrible way to interpret that though, it would have made more sense for cover to be a modifier to BS, as it was affecting aiming.

They had made the design decision to avoid modifiers in 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Plus modifiers to hit do have their own drawbacks as far as abstraction (eventually, the lascannon WILL take the shot, even if he can't clearly see...). the whole problem of -3 armies in 8th.

A flat cover save is at least simple and easy whilst still being adjustable for different terrain types.

Tyran wrote:Personally I would prefer 40k to move away from model based rules to unit based ones (like Apocalypse).

And the older blast rules were a quite bad example of model based rules. I would prefer blast weapons in which the point was hitting multiple units rather than multiple models.

I agree with this, actually. Rules should match the scale of the game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 19:47:08


Post by: Tawnis


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."


A flat save was a terrible way to interpret that though, it would have made more sense for cover to be a modifier to BS, as it was affecting aiming.

They had made the design decision to avoid modifiers in 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Plus modifiers to hit do have their own drawbacks as far as abstraction (eventually, the lascannon WILL take the shot, even if he can't clearly see...). the whole problem of -3 armies in 8th.

A flat cover save is at least simple and easy whilst still being adjustable for different terrain types.

Tyran wrote:Personally I would prefer 40k to move away from model based rules to unit based ones (like Apocalypse).

And the older blast rules were a quite bad example of model based rules. I would prefer blast weapons in which the point was hitting multiple units rather than multiple models.

I agree with this, actually. Rules should match the scale of the game.


On the first point, that only half explains things though. If it were really representing "concealment" then you would always get the save, not only when it would otherwise pierce your armour.

I think that the unit rules for Apoc fit Apoc well, but I like the individuality of 40k models. Like Unit said, the rules should match the scale of the game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 20:05:16


Post by: Galas


I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 20:10:52


Post by: Tawnis


 Galas wrote:
I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


Yeah I totally agree. I feel like sometimes I'm the only one wo doesn't have an opinion on the "best edition." There are things I've liked and disliked about all of them and it feels like every time they implement something new I'm excited about, something else comes along that makes me groan. If anything, I'd say it's consistently inconsistent, but I still always find it enjoyable.

One of these days I'm going to find myself a copy of the old RT book and see how bonkers the really old stuff was.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 20:21:32


Post by: Galas


Im also in the "I like to Play all editions for different reasons and without the most op stuff" camp


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 20:28:25


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Galas wrote:
I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


I think that 40k has never been the deepest game, but I don't think all editions are equally shallow. Some were deeper than others; others were shallower than others.

That leaves room for 40k to have a "best edition" even if it's never been the best game on the market.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 20:33:11


Post by: Galas


IS hard to have a best edition when talking about subjetive mechanics evalúed by taste, feeling and fun.

IS easier to find the worst edition than the BEST one, ithink


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 20:44:04


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yes, "best" is subjective, definitely, and I even think you might get disagreement on the worst edition (though I would agree with you if you said 7th).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 21:22:45


Post by: Insectum7


PenitentJake wrote:

. . .
in what universe was that a) a pregame decision (Unit) or b) not risk vs. reward (Insectum)?
I honestly had trouble parsing what the scenario you're describing there. But I think there are a few key dimensions at play here.
1. The difference between "self harm" risk reward and "hurt opponent" risk reward.
2. The difference between universally available mechanics and army specific ones.
3. The amount of additional "bespoke"/unique mechanics deployable per list. (Includes stratagems)
4. The effectiveness of those mechanics.

Examples: (broad strokes)
In 4th, There was a maximum of 2 HQs in the FOC. Most characters had a limited number of unique mechanics, many of which were universal, and many of any special mechanics weren't really that effective in terms of raw lethality against opponents. Most "lethal" mechanics required CC (and therefore proximity, therefore maneuvering).

An exception to the above might be Eldar, with the psychic power Doom. Many people (marine players?) Hated Doom. It's a ranged, lethality boost power. But an Eldar army might only field one Farseer, and therefore only cast Doom once each turn.

These days it feels like every army has like 5 of their own particular versions of Doom, many of which eithrr require list choices/combos, or Stratagems to enact. (Exaggeration, I'm sure, but my attention is divided atm. Although I can think of several for Space Marines off the too of my head).

I'm not sure that's a full response to your question/challenge though, I think I veered away from what you were aiming at. I'm watching kids atm so am cognitively impaired. Apologies. I can try again in a bit


As for aura bunching (Insectum), most 9th ed dexes buff a single unit in aura range, not EVERY unit in aura range (that was an 8th ed thing, and for the most part, it is being changed as new dexes drop).
Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).


Blast weapons in 9th, with minimum hits based on enemy unit size are still frightening to a dude who takes a unit of 10+ in order to maximize the impact of the aura buff. Perhaps not "Terrifying" in the same way as in the example you cite- but again, funny how you'll champion lethality in a version of the game you like and spit roast 9th because it's too lethal. I mean, I get it- it's a case of one unit being particularly lethal vs. most units being more lethal than expected... But then does that mean internal balance (another common complaint) is off in the version you prefer, and more consistent in 9th?

The context of the larger game environment is hugely important here. In 4th, there's no way a Tactical Squad could get anywhere near as lethal at 12" inches, when compared to a double firing Intercessor Squad with rerolls at 32" today.

The "terrifying" impact of the potential Ordinance shell in 4th was partly there because it was unique in capability (FOC chart + unit choice rarity + terrain rules). And this uniqueness added more maneuver and counterplay opportunity.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 21:31:19


Post by: Tawnis


 Insectum7 wrote:
Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).


Yeah, there isn't anything conceptually wrong with aura's but IMHO a character should be either an aura character OR a fighter character, not both. Now it seems like every character can do everything where back in the day they just felt like tougher regular guys.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 21:48:24


Post by: Insectum7


I'm having trouble with finding a good phraseology atm, but there's some overarching theme of the balance between cognitive load during play, and the punishment for inadequately forseeing the impending opponent action. This is what makes a "gotcha" moment.

If you lose a unit because of something you feel you should have forseen, that's a feeling of self mistake. "Oh I should have seen that coming."

If you lose a unit because unit A combined with unit B combined with Strats C and D in some more obscure combination, that's more likely to cause exasperation.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 21:53:30


Post by: Racerguy180


Tawnis wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


Yeah I totally agree. I feel like sometimes I'm the only one wo doesn't have an opinion on the "best edition." There are things I've liked and disliked about all of them and it feels like every time they implement something new I'm excited about, something else comes along that makes me groan. If anything, I'd say it's consistently inconsistent, but I still always find it enjoyable.

One of these days I'm going to find myself a copy of the old RT book and see how bonkers the really old stuff was.

The answer is.......BONKERS!!!!!

And fun as hell.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 21:57:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I missed PenitentJake's example in the changeover, but I think the example misses the point.

Did you have a plan when you put the DCA in your list? Was it to send them in with the arcos or do something else?

If it was to send them in together, do that. If it wasn't, don't do it.

This whole "plan" thing goes to your whole army (more than just DCA and one unit of Arcos) and a solution presents itself usually.

For my part, I would never use 5 DCA against more than 3 regular SM (they are unlikely to do much and very likely to die badly). So the obvious answer is "send them with the arcos" because if you don't, they will just get mulched by any number of the units facing them after killing about 3 marines


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 22:44:39


Post by: Rihgu


Did you have a plan when you put the DCA in your list? Was it to send them in with the arcos or do something else?

If it was to send them in together, do that. If it wasn't, don't do it.

This is absolutely incredible. I'm speechless at this.

"You should have made this in-game decision before the game, when you wrote the list."

What?

edit: "You have a transport, facing difficult terrain, but it's not equipped with a dozer blade. Do you risk immobilizing yourself on the terrain to be able to disgorge the infantry inside to claim the objective or do you take the long way 'round, possibly allowing the enemy to get their own infantry on the objective first."

"Well, since I didn't give it a dozer blade, the plan was never to enter terrain. So I'll go around. Dang, this game has no in-game decisions! That was planned before we even started!"


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:03:56


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?


No more or less than it can your dangerous terrain roll, which is fabulous tactics from your point of view, while stacking is not- that was the point about double standards. The decision making process relating to whether or not to use a strat/ which one to use was outlined in the example I provided.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.


Sort of: most strats have a phase in which they need to be used; each can only be used once per turn, and only if you have the CP; using any strat is a tactical choice, because it ALWAYS comes at an opportunity cost.

Can you counterplay? Sometimes: ie you can often play a defensive strat to offset the impact of an offensive one, but again, that's a tactical choice, because if you do it, it may prevent you from playing an offensive strat of your own on the following turn.

Either way, the tactical decision is still more involved than the crossing the trench example you praise: there's no limit to how many units can choose to cross the trench per turn; there's no limit to the amount of times that trench can be crossed per game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.


One way to suppress an aura is to kill or interfere with the dude who grants it. Abilities which shut down or modify auras themselves also exist- aura shut down is common enough- and interestingly enough, the source isn't always a strat- some unit's have it as a psychic power or datacard ability. Way more options for interfering than there are for forcing you to cross the trench if you don't want to or preventing it if you do.

Auras are also limited and diverse enough to provide capacity for stacking vs. coverage, and again often come at an opportunity cost.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.


No, but as clearly stated in my example, not all units in any given army are going to have it. You'll counter by saying that's a list building choice, which it is, but it's also not, because assessing whether not a particular threat or other battlefield duty requires the unit with access to the tactic is
a decision at least as complex and "tactical" as deciding to cross a trench and take a penalty vs. take another route: in some cases I would argue it's even MORE of a tactical decision.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


But you're completely ignoring what is required to do that: positioning is critical to the process because both the offensive and defensive auras need to be in the proper position to achieve the desired effect, and you have to take risks and assess rewards to get them there; same can be said of tactics and strats as not all units in your army have access to them. Interactions from datacard abilities and psychic powers interact with these decisions too.

We both want different things from the games we play- I think both of us have acknowledged this before. Many people think something is tactical only if it's a base rule that is available to every army in a similar, universal way. Even people who hate strats often don't mind that BRB strats that are common to all armies. The ridiculousness comes from the assumption that either system is inherently more "tactical" or "deep" than the other.





Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:06:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, terrain... should make each game unique and make it very difficult to build an army that algorithmically solves its way to victory through a combination of pre-identified factors.
Sadly we're seeing more and more symmetrical tables filled with L-shaped ruins.

It's sickening.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.
But it also led to anal retentive players spending half their turns carefully measuring out 2" between all their models.

I like blast markers, but given the choice between that and the blast system we have now (GW's idiotic definition of a "horde" being 6+ models notwithstanding), I'll take what we have now.





Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:27:56


Post by: Eldarsif


 Galas wrote:

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


Agree wholeheartedly.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:28:10


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 Insectum7 wrote:
Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.
But it also led to anal retentive players spending half their turns carefully measuring out 2" between all their models.

I like blast markers, but given the choice between that and the blast system we have no (GW's idiotic definition of a "horde" being 6+ models notwithstanding), I'll take what we have now.


Soo, yes, sort of. Terrain and edition context comes heavily into play here. In 4th when LOS was more likely to be blocked by area terrain and in paradigms where Ordinance (usually) could not be fired by tanks on the move, there was a more compelling decision process between bunching up your models (so they could be/remain out of LOS) and spreading them out to mitigate damage (Or even bunching them up in cover and hoping for a big miss from the incoming blast).

I think in the great "firepower inflation" (were Wyverns introduced in 5th?) and cover reducing TLOS mechanics of 5th, there's much more incentive to start spreading out your models maximally as a defensive measure. I (somewhat ashamedly) remember doing it a few times particularly once Helldrakes came out in 6th, because there was just no other defense.

It's one of those mechanics (like so many) where the greater environment determines how prevalent irritating secondary behaviors manifest.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, terrain... should make each game unique and make it very difficult to build an army that algorithmically solves its way to victory through a combination of pre-identified factors.
Sadly we're seeing and more symmetrical tables filled with L-shaped ruins.

It's sickening.
Agree.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:35:21


Post by: Eldarsif


Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).


Previous editions just had Deathstars which wasn't really fun.

Personally I think the auras are getting close to perfect for a lot of armies, and I consider 8th to be the height of Aurahammer.

I think the most egregious aura buffers now are similar to the large heroes in Godhammer(AoS). They tend to break regular aura limitations in the codex and makes the units often more popular because of that. Just happy we don't have Archaeon and Teclis level heroes in 40k.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:53:51


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Insectum7 wrote:
Soo, yes, sort of. Terrain and edition context comes heavily into play here. In 4th when LOS was more likely to be blocked by area terrain and in paradigms where Ordinance (usually) could not be fired by tanks on the move, there was a more compelling decision process between bunching up your models (so they could be/remain out of LOS) and spreading them out to mitigate damage (Or even bunching them up in cover and hoping for a big miss from the incoming blast).
Actually I agree with you.

When I first encountered someone spacing out their models endlessly (an Eldar player in 7th no less, who blasted me off the table with Wave Serpents energy fields anyway, making the entire spacing affair 10 times more unnecessary), I remember thinking that this never used to be a thing. And, seeing what you wrote above, you're right, it didn't used to be a thing because the terrain rules meant it was easier to keep things out of LOS and some of the biggest 'pie plates' couldn't zoom around the table causing death to tightly packed clumps of infantry.

Worse is when you see someone who has a lovely gaming mat that they've hastily taped off all four edges to make the play area smaller and then filled it with a symmetrical L-shaped ruin set up.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:57:34


Post by: Insectum7


 Eldarsif wrote:
Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).

Previous editions just had Deathstars which wasn't really fun.

Personally I think the auras are getting close to perfect for a lot of armies, and I consider 8th to be the height of Aurahammer.

I think the most egregious aura buffers now are similar to the large heroes in Godhammer(AoS). They tend to break regular aura limitations in the codex and makes the units often more popular because of that. Just happy we don't have Archaeon and Teclis level heroes in 40k.

I can't remember too many deathstars from 3rd and 4th ed, honestly. A couple chaos ones are all that come to mind and you paid through the nose for them. 5th started getting goofy because of wound allocation. 7th ed deathstars are another story altogether, but pre-8th has a giant range.

The whole "shoot harder" with marine auras, plus the time consuming reroll mechanics remain irritating, even though they're reduced a bit from 8th.

I've been playing Tyranids recently, and god is it refreshing to just roll once and have a result.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/28 23:59:29


Post by: H.B.M.C.


3rd went to great lengths to remove the 'Hero-Hammer' of 2nd Ed, making character-led squads less of a "Death Star".


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 00:00:49


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Soo, yes, sort of. Terrain and edition context comes heavily into play here. In 4th when LOS was more likely to be blocked by area terrain and in paradigms where Ordinance (usually) could not be fired by tanks on the move, there was a more compelling decision process between bunching up your models (so they could be/remain out of LOS) and spreading them out to mitigate damage (Or even bunching them up in cover and hoping for a big miss from the incoming blast).
Actually I agree with you.

When I first encountered someone spacing out their models endlessly (an Eldar player in 7th no less, who blasted me off the table with Wave Serpents energy fields anyway, making the entire spacing affair 10 times more unnecessary), I remember thinking that this never used to be a thing. And, seeing what you wrote above, you're right, it didn't used to be a thing because the terrain rules meant it was easier to keep things out of LOS and some of the biggest 'pie plates' couldn't zoom around the table causing death to tightly packed clumps of infantry.

Worse is when you see someone who has a lovely gaming mat that they've hastily taped off all four edges to make the play area smaller and then filled it with a symmetrical L-shaped ruin set up.


My gag reflex just kicked in and I can taste a bit of bile.

God, the smaller tables thing. Feth me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3rd went to great lengths to remove the 'Hero-Hammer' of 2nd Ed, making character-led squads less of a "Death Star".
That was really a nice move, honestly. I remember the shock looking at Marneus Calgar in the 3rd ed book, realizing that there were no wargear cards, he dindn't come with an invuln save, and a single Krak missile would just Instant Death him.

Then over the years we got more, better invulns, Eternal Warrior, etc, and now we have Primaris Captains that are more resilient than Carnifexes. :/


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 00:10:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I remember my dauntless Inquisitor Lord (and 4th Level Psyker), Dennifus Zentor, a man with a Nemesis Great Blade, Displacer Field, Terminator Armour and a Psycannon.

When backed up by his trusted compatriot, Commissar Jackson (who had a power fist and a jump pack, naturally), this guy could take on half an army by himself, and my attendant Guard might as well have not shown up for all the benefit they gave him.

It was fun, but I don't miss those hero-hammer days. The way 3rd handled characters was so much better, leaving the really cool stuff to some of the bigger things like 3.5 Chaos Lords.

Of course that meant that other things were kinda gakky, like Greater Daemons.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Then over the years we got more, better invulns, Eternal Warrior, etc, and now we have Primaris Captains that are more resilient than Carnifexes. :/
Rhinos are more resilient than Carnifexes.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 00:16:43


Post by: Insectum7


Lol I had nearly the same dude. Inquisitor Lord Euphrateus (Tigurius and Euphrateus . . . Get it?) With his Nemesis Force Weapon, Displacer and Level 4 Psyker. But my guy didn't use Terminator armor.

The Rhino to Carnifex thing is particularly maddening.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 00:18:00


Post by: Galas


I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

But I have a thing for smaller tier characters like company champions, techmarines, Warlocks, Ethereals, etc... and I always like more when they can do stuff and be more than just an add-on for an squad to receive some kind of buff.

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 00:28:59


Post by: Insectum7


 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

But I have a thing for smaller tier characters like company champions, techmarines, Warlocks, Ethereals, etc... and I always like more when they can do stuff and be more than just an add-on for an squad to receive some kind of buff.

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.
I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 02:08:00


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

I wish they'd lean into characters actually giving commands more. Theoretically, the thing that makes many characters characters is their rank and authority to tell your other units what to do. So rather than boring "kill more betterer" auras, I'd love to see characters have a list of orders they can give out. For instance, I'd love my autarch to be able to give a unit JSJ or the ability to fall back and shoot each turn. No need to turn him into a one man army; let the commanders actually command!

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 03:24:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.
I just wish that more characters were focused on shooting, or had the option to be focused on shooting.

As much as he shouldn't be a whole separate datasheet in the Codex (because that's just pants-on-head-stupid and indicative of GW's terrible Codex design), I'm glad that the 'Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle' exists. It's not the greatest weapon, but it's a "Shooty HQ" for Marines that isn't just a combi-weapon.

I know Marine heroes are meant to be lead-from-the-front types, armed with deadly close combat weapons and ancient and powerful relics, but I'd like one to pick up a Heavy Bolter every once and a while. I mean take the 9th Company Captain of Codex Chapters. Every squad in his company is a Devastator squad. Do you think he's running forward with his power sword whilst his 100 closest friends are blazing away at range? That guy should have a Combi-Lascannon/Frag Missile Launcher!

Same applies to Terminator leaders. Why limit them to Storm Bolters and similar weapons?

"Sorry Captain Agemman, but now that you've ascended to the rank of 1st Company Captain you can't use that Heavy Flamer anymore. But we can attach a tiny Grenade Launcher to your power fist!"

This goes for Imperial Guard commanders as well, whose weapons are often ornamental more than functional. Let my senior officer rock around with a sniper-rifle, or something like that!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 04:25:39


Post by: Insectum7


I think the Combi-weapon is an alright route to go, especially now that Combis aren't limited to a single shot anymore. Wouldn't mind a 9th Co Cap with a Lascannon. . .

No more Techmarine with conversion beamer though :/. Technically the TM with a Thunderfire Cannon is a hero with heavy weapon?

Just wait 6mo and I'm sure we'll get a Heavy Intercessor Captain with a master crafted turbo heavy bolt rifle tho.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 08:55:15


Post by: Slipspace


Rihgu wrote:
Did you have a plan when you put the DCA in your list? Was it to send them in with the arcos or do something else?

If it was to send them in together, do that. If it wasn't, don't do it.

This is absolutely incredible. I'm speechless at this.

"You should have made this in-game decision before the game, when you wrote the list."

What?


I think the point is it's too easy to construct your list with the various roles already built in to the units you take. What Unit's saying is essentially that the role of the DCAs in this case was determined at army selection, as was that of the Arcos. If you're in a position to use them for their assigned role you should do that. If you're not you need to do some quick maths to figure out if they can do what you want and if they can't don't use them for that. This also highlights another problem with the general increase in lethality: too often decisions come down to "can I kill that thing in one turn" or "can I survive for one turn". There's basically no nuance in that at all.

It's not that you'll never have to change a predetermined plan, it's that when the only meaningful way to interact with the enemy is often to just kill them the decision process becomes binary.

PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.


Sort of: most strats have a phase in which they need to be used; each can only be used once per turn, and only if you have the CP; using any strat is a tactical choice, because it ALWAYS comes at an opportunity cost.

Can you counterplay? Sometimes: ie you can often play a defensive strat to offset the impact of an offensive one, but again, that's a tactical choice, because if you do it, it may prevent you from playing an offensive strat of your own on the following turn.

Either way, the tactical decision is still more involved than the crossing the trench example you praise: there's no limit to how many units can choose to cross the trench per turn; there's no limit to the amount of times that trench can be crossed per game.


Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.

PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.


One way to suppress an aura is to kill or interfere with the dude who grants it. Abilities which shut down or modify auras themselves also exist- aura shut down is common enough- and interestingly enough, the source isn't always a strat- some unit's have it as a psychic power or datacard ability. Way more options for interfering than there are for forcing you to cross the trench if you don't want to or preventing it if you do.

Auras are also limited and diverse enough to provide capacity for stacking vs. coverage, and again often come at an opportunity cost.


Aura shutdown is in no way common. Across my 4 armies I don't think I have any way to do it and of the armies I face most frequently I think there's one relic or WL trait that can do it and a single psychic power. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion it's common. The main problem I have with auras is the lack of opportunity cost for using them. Things like SM Captains, Lords of Contagion, Technomancers etc often are either included specifically for their buff, or do a whole bunch of other beneficial things at the same time so you don't have to give up, say, close combat potential in order to get the most out of a character's reroll 1s buff. Combine that with the fact the detachment system removes any real opportunity cost from building your army and I don't see how there's any real opportunity cost to taking these characters.


PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


But you're completely ignoring what is required to do that: positioning is critical to the process because both the offensive and defensive auras need to be in the proper position to achieve the desired effect, and you have to take risks and assess rewards to get them there; same can be said of tactics and strats as not all units in your army have access to them. Interactions from datacard abilities and psychic powers interact with these decisions too.


Two things here. Firstly, if you really think staying within 6" of a re-roll aura is the mark of great tactical positioning I think we have very different ideas of what that phrase means. It's trivially easy to remain in range of most auras, especially the re-roll auras which tend to be 6". Even 3" auras are pretty easy to maintain because it only requires a tiny sliver of a base from a single model in the unit to be in range. As for interactions with abilities and psychic powers, these are either factored into your plan at the army build stage and rarely able to be countered by your opponent, or your opponent has some counter that you can't really interact with so you just shrug and get on with things.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 09:21:02


Post by: Eldarsif


Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.


I find this entire argument a little disingenuous because overall you can call everything on the table an optimization problem with the same logic. Is it optimal to go over the dangerous terrain or not? Is it optimal to move my unit there and shoot at that enemy unit? Tactical is about optimizing your chances so the entire argument just falls over itself.

This is my entire problem with the arguments here. People have an extremely personal opinion on what is tactical or not with no basis in anything factual. This is also why I hate these topics is because armchair generals - as we all are - go around throwing their authority and definitions as if these things were some holy imperial facts which they aren't. It would be more honest that people would just say they don't like one gameplay or not instead of going on a rant about what is tactical or not, because it is a copout to not admit your own emotions.

If you don't think Warhammer is tactical go play other games. You'll see similar issues there and you will still continue complaining about the games not being "tactical" enough because ultimately it was never about anyone thinking a game wasn't tactical or not, but their own dislike for the game itself.

I do not mean any animosity towards anyone here, but this girl is bloody fething tired of this definition bickering and currently on a lot painkillers.

Rant over.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 10:07:54


Post by: a_typical_hero



Kind of my thoughts when reading those posts.
I'd like to add if these "non tactical" decisions are so obvious, I wonder why the same people keep winning tournaments. We all have access to the same playing material (units) after all.

It reminds me a bit how poker is "just getting lucky with the cards".


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 10:15:30


Post by: vipoid


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just wish that more characters were focused on shooting, or had the option to be focused on shooting.

As much as he shouldn't be a whole separate datasheet in the Codex (because that's just pants-on-head-stupid and indicative of GW's terrible Codex design), I'm glad that the 'Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle' exists. It's not the greatest weapon, but it's a "Shooty HQ" for Marines that isn't just a combi-weapon.

I know Marine heroes are meant to be lead-from-the-front types, armed with deadly close combat weapons and ancient and powerful relics, but I'd like one to pick up a Heavy Bolter every once and a while. I mean take the 9th Company Captain of Codex Chapters. Every squad in his company is a Devastator squad. Do you think he's running forward with his power sword whilst his 100 closest friends are blazing away at range? That guy should have a Combi-Lascannon/Frag Missile Launcher!

Same applies to Terminator leaders. Why limit them to Storm Bolters and similar weapons?

"Sorry Captain Agemman, but now that you've ascended to the rank of 1st Company Captain you can't use that Heavy Flamer anymore. But we can attach a tiny Grenade Launcher to your power fist!"

This goes for Imperial Guard commanders as well, whose weapons are often ornamental more than functional. Let my senior officer rock around with a sniper-rifle, or something like that!


Absolutely agree.

It's why I find it so disheartening that my favourite army seems instead to be charging in the opposite direction. Archons can no longer take Blasters, Haemonculi can't take Hexrifles or even Liquifier guns, so we're just left with 3 melee HQs, complimented by 3 melee special characters. zzzzzZZZZ


Wyldhunt wrote:

I wish they'd lean into characters actually giving commands more. Theoretically, the thing that makes many characters characters is their rank and authority to tell your other units what to do. So rather than boring "kill more betterer" auras, I'd love to see characters have a list of orders they can give out. For instance, I'd love my autarch to be able to give a unit JSJ or the ability to fall back and shoot each turn. No need to turn him into a one man army; let the commanders actually command!

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...


I think a key aspect that ties into both this and the shooty aspect above is that I want my characters to be doing things, and it feels much better to have active abilities than passive ones.

If I have a Company Commander at the back of the table then he can still do things - namely issuing Orders. My officers can never so much as fire a single shot and yet it will still feel like they've taken an active role in contributing to the battle. Same goes for a Farseer, Sorcerer or other Psyker. They've got stuff to do each turn and might even get to do something in the opponent's turn.

In contrast, if I sit an Archon with some Scourges on the backfield (or some Ravagers in 8th edition), he'll be buffing them but in a completely passive way. Even if the overall effect was identical, it *feels* so much worse because all he can do is sit around, twiddling his thumbs each turn. Because mechanically there's nothing for him to do, no decisions to be made. And, as mentioned above, he can't even contribute by taking some pot-shots each turn because his only gun is a run-of-the-mill Splinter Pistol with a wopping 12" range.


Wyldhunt wrote:

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...


If it involves removing Stratagems from the game then I'm all for it.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 10:49:31


Post by: Slipspace


 Eldarsif wrote:
Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.


I find this entire argument a little disingenuous because overall you can call everything on the table an optimization problem with the same logic. Is it optimal to go over the dangerous terrain or not? Is it optimal to move my unit there and shoot at that enemy unit? Tactical is about optimizing your chances so the entire argument just falls over itself.


The difference for me comes down to how much control you have as a player over your actions and those of your opponent. I think 40k lacks tactical depth because you have near-total control over your own actions and very little ability to interact with your opponent beyond killing their stuff or buffing your own guys to make them harder to kill. The issue is that the optimisation problem is being done with all the important information known already.

When my opponent passes the turn to me I know everything I need to know and can optimise my decisions based on near-perfect knowledge. They can't move their units except in a few very specific circumstances and I can check my own CP and my opponent's while also measuring any and all ranges at my leisure. On top of that I know my opponent's threat ranges next turn and can plan for that with, again, near-perfect information.


If you don't think Warhammer is tactical go play other games. You'll see similar issues there and you will still continue complaining about the games not being "tactical" enough because ultimately it was never about anyone thinking a game wasn't tactical or not, but their own dislike for the game itself.


I do play other games and I don't see the same issues there, hence my scepticism about the supposed level of tactical thinking in 40k. I don't think any of those other games are perfect but I do think they are more tactically challenging and engaging than 40k. In all cases it's because they alter the optimisation problem from a decision tree where all the variables (or very nearly all) are known, as in 40k, to one where there are various hidden variables I can't know for sure, or at all. They also universally have much lower lethality, which means you need to consider a unit's continued presence, even at lesser capabilities, whereas in 40k where your expectation is almost always that you'll wipe out a unit to negate its ability to affect the game.

As a practical example from my last game of X-Wing I had to decide whether to make the "obvious" move with one of my ships in the knowledge that my opponent also knows this is optimal but has the ability to try to block it. So the question is do I think my opponent will try to block it or do I think my opponent might believe I'll not do that move because it's too obvious, in which case it's best to do the obvious move rather than the less obvious one. Alternatively, I could also decide to do something they are very unlikely to predict, which would also put me in a less advantageous position than if I correctly guess which of the other 2 moves to do. In that scenario I simply don't have all the information I need to make the "correct" decision so the optimisation problem is virtually impossible to solve and I need to balance risk and reward much more than in a game of 40k.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 14:26:35


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Eldarsif wrote:
Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.


I find this entire argument a little disingenuous because overall you can call everything on the table an optimization problem with the same logic. Is it optimal to go over the dangerous terrain or not? Is it optimal to move my unit there and shoot at that enemy unit? Tactical is about optimizing your chances so the entire argument just falls over itself.

Negative, thanks for fundamentally misunderstanding my post.

Optimization is not the correct kind of analysis required for tactics. For example, it may be optimal mathematically to do a human wave attack, but it may be militarily optimal (given concerns like troop morale across the army or logistical constraints WRT replacement soldiers and equipment) to organize around an air or artillery strike, etc.

Reducing war to a math problem is something the Soviets tried to do (check out their analytic method called "COFM" - correlation of forces and means - an attempt to reduce tactics and strategy to pure mathematical optimization routines). Even THEY realized it couldn't be done (though credit to them for trying; they still discovered several useful insights).

Essentially, military science (which a wargame should seek to replicate on the tabletop) is both mathematics and art in some mix. Not EVERYTHING is optimizable mathematically.

For example, in 4th:
[A chimera with two heavy flamers is on the far side of some woods from an enemy unit of Orks. Right now, they cannot see each other, but the Chimera is uncovered on its other sides so still vulnerable to enemy shooting from those directions.]
It may be mathematically optimal to go over the dangerous terrain to achieve a specific attack (say, with a flamer chimera). In 4th, you have to weigh this against the other alternatives:
1) The Chimera is successful and does not immobilize itself. However, as it ended in terrain, it must try again to move next turn. Still, it was able to attack. And it will be in terrain, meaning the opponent may be hard-pressed to deal with it given its cover and their need to move through cover to charge it. Unless, of course, the opponent's unit is already really close, which it might be if the flamer attack is unsuccessful...
2) The Chimera immobilizes itself immediately. Mathematically unlikely, but possible consideration. It neither attacks, nor is useful in future turns.
BUT the enemy might get close. Is there an objective nearby? How close? Can they score it without getting in flamer range?
OR MAYBE I have a tech-priest nearby. How close is the tech-priest? Did I buy him servitors? If not, it's only a 6+ to repair... but then again, that's the same chance as being immobilized.
3) The chimera does not immobilize itself immediately and attacks, but does not successfully move next turn. Same questions as above, but with the added problem that the enemy unit is even closer. What's the likelyhood the flamers will wipe it out or degrade it badly? What's the plan if they do? Was it worth it? Depends on all sorts of other on-table facts.

That same situation in 9th? What is the depth of choices and concerns there?

 Eldarsif wrote:
This is my entire problem with the arguments here. People have an extremely personal opinion on what is tactical or not with no basis in anything factual. This is also why I hate these topics is because armchair generals - as we all are - go around throwing their authority and definitions as if these things were some holy imperial facts which they aren't. It would be more honest that people would just say they don't like one gameplay or not instead of going on a rant about what is tactical or not, because it is a copout to not admit your own emotions.

This assertion about what people do and don't do is both an ad-hominem and unhelpful. If you want to address the specific definition of tactics, that's a separate argument, but I'm happy to have it. It's certainly objective, though, not opinion.

 Eldarsif wrote:
If you don't think Warhammer is tactical go play other games. You'll see similar issues there and you will still continue complaining about the games not being "tactical" enough because ultimately it was never about anyone thinking a game wasn't tactical or not, but their own dislike for the game itself.

I do play other games. My favorite game is actually Chain of Command, and if you want I can explain why. The same issues do NOT arise there, and I do not complain about the game not being tactical enough.

I want Warhammer to be more like how Chain of Command is, but preserve its own flavor (CoC is World War II, so simply plopping Space Marines and Orks into it doesn't work as a straight port). This starts by going back to the decision that offered the player the most tactical, WARGAME (not just GAME) play, and building from there. It's why I have such respect for Mezomorki and what he's already achieved doing exactly that.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I do not mean any animosity towards anyone here, but this girl is bloody fething tired of this definition bickering and currently on a lot painkillers.

Rant over.

Sorry; some of us are passionate about the topic and "definition bickering" isn't what's happening; it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument, I think.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 14:57:14


Post by: Tawnis


 Galas wrote:

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.


Ah, a kindred soul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.


For me, I always thought that SM's (and by extension CSM's) should be the one faction that was really hard to kill. When I played the older editions one of the things I disliked was how fast they died and how wildly inconsistent it was with the lore. Personally, I've always thought that the Space Marine army should have been designed kind of like the current Custodes style where you have a couple of super strong squads trying to take on a much larger army. But then GW wouldn't be able to sell anywhere near as many marine models and they are their flagship army so...


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:14:11


Post by: Rihgu


For example, in 4th:
[A chimera with two heavy flamers is on the far side of some woods from an enemy unit of Orks. Right now, they cannot see each other, but the Chimera is uncovered on its other sides so still vulnerable to enemy shooting from those directions.]
It may be mathematically optimal to go over the dangerous terrain to achieve a specific attack (say, with a flamer chimera). In 4th, you have to weigh this against the other alternatives:
1) The Chimera is successful and does not immobilize itself. However, as it ended in terrain, it must try again to move next turn. Still, it was able to attack. And it will be in terrain, meaning the opponent may be hard-pressed to deal with it given its cover and their need to move through cover to charge it. Unless, of course, the opponent's unit is already really close, which it might be if the flamer attack is unsuccessful...
2) The Chimera immobilizes itself immediately. Mathematically unlikely, but possible consideration. It neither attacks, nor is useful in future turns.
BUT the enemy might get close. Is there an objective nearby? How close? Can they score it without getting in flamer range?
OR MAYBE I have a tech-priest nearby. How close is the tech-priest? Did I buy him servitors? If not, it's only a 6+ to repair... but then again, that's the same chance as being immobilized.
3) The chimera does not immobilize itself immediately and attacks, but does not successfully move next turn. Same questions as above, but with the added problem that the enemy unit is even closer. What's the likelyhood the flamers will wipe it out or degrade it badly? What's the plan if they do? Was it worth it? Depends on all sorts of other on-table facts.

That same situation in 9th? What is the depth of choices and concerns there?

This is only approaching an unsolveable situation because you've left out a number of factors required to solve it.

1) how large is the ork unit?
2) What *is* the ork unit?
3) Does it have a nob with a power klaw in it?
4) How spread out is the ork unit, or more directly, how many heavy flamer hits am I going to get when I successfully attack?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:16:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Rihgu wrote:
For example, in 4th:
[A chimera with two heavy flamers is on the far side of some woods from an enemy unit of Orks. Right now, they cannot see each other, but the Chimera is uncovered on its other sides so still vulnerable to enemy shooting from those directions.]
It may be mathematically optimal to go over the dangerous terrain to achieve a specific attack (say, with a flamer chimera). In 4th, you have to weigh this against the other alternatives:
1) The Chimera is successful and does not immobilize itself. However, as it ended in terrain, it must try again to move next turn. Still, it was able to attack. And it will be in terrain, meaning the opponent may be hard-pressed to deal with it given its cover and their need to move through cover to charge it. Unless, of course, the opponent's unit is already really close, which it might be if the flamer attack is unsuccessful...
2) The Chimera immobilizes itself immediately. Mathematically unlikely, but possible consideration. It neither attacks, nor is useful in future turns.
BUT the enemy might get close. Is there an objective nearby? How close? Can they score it without getting in flamer range?
OR MAYBE I have a tech-priest nearby. How close is the tech-priest? Did I buy him servitors? If not, it's only a 6+ to repair... but then again, that's the same chance as being immobilized.
3) The chimera does not immobilize itself immediately and attacks, but does not successfully move next turn. Same questions as above, but with the added problem that the enemy unit is even closer. What's the likelyhood the flamers will wipe it out or degrade it badly? What's the plan if they do? Was it worth it? Depends on all sorts of other on-table facts.

That same situation in 9th? What is the depth of choices and concerns there?

This is only approaching an unsolveable situation because you've left out a number of factors required to solve it.

1) how large is the ork unit?
2) What *is* the ork unit?
3) Does it have a nob with a power klaw in it?
4) How spread out is the ork unit, or more directly, how many heavy flamer hits am I going to get when I successfully attack?


Right, I left a lot out.

But those don't make it more solvable, I don't think. Remember, you can't premeasure in 4th, so

1) How large it is doesn't matter to this specific attack (it does in 9th tho, which makes it more solvable). Say, 30? How they are positioned (hey there's that weird 'actually needing to see the tabletop to play' thing again) does matter (unlike 9th).
2) Boys, I suppose?
3) Yes!
4) Reference back to 1, but at best you can only estimate this since you can't premeasure in 4th. That's a skill in and of itself (knowing the flamer template is about 8" long, about 1.5"-2" wide at its widest, etc).

Those just add more risk-reward considerations and concerns as well as additional skill requirements (for example, the estimation for point 4 is crucial. Maybe you say six, I say eight, the real answer is 4, which turns out not to be worth it. BETTER IMPROVE OUR SKILLS!. Or maybe we estimate 4-6 and determine it isn't worth the risk, but the real answer is 12 - looks like a missed opportunity, and we should improve our skills...)


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:17:36


Post by: Galas


 Tawnis wrote:
 Galas wrote:

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.


Ah, a kindred soul.




I did read your post about Kroot tactics and it was a great inspiration for me, very entertaining!

I'm here just waiting for more vespid units... I really love their design


Spoiler:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
For example, in 4th:
[A chimera with two heavy flamers is on the far side of some woods from an enemy unit of Orks. Right now, they cannot see each other, but the Chimera is uncovered on its other sides so still vulnerable to enemy shooting from those directions.]
It may be mathematically optimal to go over the dangerous terrain to achieve a specific attack (say, with a flamer chimera). In 4th, you have to weigh this against the other alternatives:
1) The Chimera is successful and does not immobilize itself. However, as it ended in terrain, it must try again to move next turn. Still, it was able to attack. And it will be in terrain, meaning the opponent may be hard-pressed to deal with it given its cover and their need to move through cover to charge it. Unless, of course, the opponent's unit is already really close, which it might be if the flamer attack is unsuccessful...
2) The Chimera immobilizes itself immediately. Mathematically unlikely, but possible consideration. It neither attacks, nor is useful in future turns.
BUT the enemy might get close. Is there an objective nearby? How close? Can they score it without getting in flamer range?
OR MAYBE I have a tech-priest nearby. How close is the tech-priest? Did I buy him servitors? If not, it's only a 6+ to repair... but then again, that's the same chance as being immobilized.
3) The chimera does not immobilize itself immediately and attacks, but does not successfully move next turn. Same questions as above, but with the added problem that the enemy unit is even closer. What's the likelyhood the flamers will wipe it out or degrade it badly? What's the plan if they do? Was it worth it? Depends on all sorts of other on-table facts.

That same situation in 9th? What is the depth of choices and concerns there?

This is only approaching an unsolveable situation because you've left out a number of factors required to solve it.

1) how large is the ork unit?
2) What *is* the ork unit?
3) Does it have a nob with a power klaw in it?
4) How spread out is the ork unit, or more directly, how many heavy flamer hits am I going to get when I successfully attack?


Right, I left a lot out.

But those don't make it more solvable, I don't think. Remember, you can't premeasure in 4th, so

1) How large it is doesn't matter (it does in 9th tho, which makes it more solvable). How they are positioned (hey there's that weird 'actually needing to see the tabletop to play' thing again) does matter (unlike 9th).
2) Boys, I suppose?
3) Yes!
4) Reference back to 1, but at best you can only estimate this since you can't premeasure in 4th. That's a skill in and of itself (knowing the flamer template is about 8" long, about 1.5"-2" wide at its widest, etc).


I have to say... the considerations in 9th are nearly the same: You basically chose to expose the vehicle hoping to kill your objetive or you don't and leave it there for other motives.

But one mistake I see in all this comparisons is that , in general, the "analysis" of situations are always biased. When someone talks about how 9th lacks tactics (It lacks them) they use examples from a "whole game" perspective. "I have this strategy and I'm gonna do it" ignoring all the little decisions we made in the game turn by turn because the mathematics will always kill our plan and we need to adapt.
But when talking about old editions better tactics, you'll (Using the general you, not you you) always use examples of a very specific situation ignoring everything else.
Why is that chimera in that situation agaisnt those orks? What are both of your armies? If that chimera is in that place I assume is because it has droped his unit and you decided probably in deployment you wanted that chimera to end up in that part of the battlefield. And then, the perspective changes from tactics to "strategy" and optimization.

The biggest difference is that in old editions you didn't had so much redundancy so if you failed to kill something or achieve something you could not use a stratagem with other unit to power it burning resources and try again, or rerrolls, or whatever. But the best competitive lists were precisely the ones that had tons of redundanc and ways to reduce to the minimun the randomness of the system.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:21:40


Post by: Rihgu


1) Well, if it's 11 boyz and I think I can kill 4, then Mob Rule doesn't come into play, which would be pretty important. If it's more than that, don't attack, because they're going to survive, probably not get pinned, and charge and wreck you with a power klaw. Moving to attack would be a waste of time.
2) Okay, thanks.
3) The Heavy Flamer attack is unwise.
4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

If the unit is 11 or more models attacking with the chimera is a fool's game unless it is clustered up. If the unit is spread out any amount, and of any size, it's a fool's game to attack.

Basically, only attack if it's a smaller sized unit and clustered up.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:27:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Rihgu wrote:
1) Well, if it's 11 boyz and I think I can kill 4, then Mob Rule doesn't come into play, which would be pretty important. If it's more than that, don't attack, because they're going to survive, probably not get pinned, and charge and wreck you with a power klaw. Moving to attack would be a waste of time.
2) Okay, thanks.
3) The Heavy Flamer attack is unwise.
4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

If the unit is 11 or more models attacking with the chimera is a fool's game unless it is clustered up. If the unit is spread out any amount, and of any size, it's a fool's game to attack.

Basically, only attack if it's a smaller sized unit and clustered up.


And the rest of your army does nothing?

This is where I agree with Galas - specific examples are a pain in the butt. I was trying to provide a counter to the example that PenitentJake provided (also very specific) which no one jumped down his throat about.

As for your point 4, it's a skill because it can be improved (or lost without use). It's not "either I have no idea what 12" is, or I do, and forever shall it be."

ALSO,
Your answer is wrong. Maybe you should attack it, because in subsequent turns you NEED the casualties you inflicted in this turn to finish them off. If you don't take the opportunity, you may not have another one (either because your chimera is dead, they enemy doesn't bunch up the same way again, etc etc.)

On-table examples like this are especially bad for 4th because the on-table relative situation matters so much more (and you can't visualize that easy on the internet). However, that is EXACTLY MY POINT. The individual situation needs much more analysis in situ than in 9th. That's tactics.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:30:07


Post by: Tawnis


Rihgu wrote:

4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.



This is actually untrue. An ability is something you are born with, a skill is learned. You can learn to estimate distance/coverage. I was garbage at it when I first started playing, but I was passable before it was removed.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:33:08


Post by: Rihgu


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
1) Well, if it's 11 boyz and I think I can kill 4, then Mob Rule doesn't come into play, which would be pretty important. If it's more than that, don't attack, because they're going to survive, probably not get pinned, and charge and wreck you with a power klaw. Moving to attack would be a waste of time.
2) Okay, thanks.
3) The Heavy Flamer attack is unwise.
4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

If the unit is 11 or more models attacking with the chimera is a fool's game unless it is clustered up. If the unit is spread out any amount, and of any size, it's a fool's game to attack.

Basically, only attack if it's a smaller sized unit and clustered up.


And the rest of your army does nothing?

This is where I agree with Galas - specific examples are a pain in the butt. I was trying to provide a counter to the example that PenitentJake provided (also very specific) which no one jumped down his throat about.

As for your point 4, it's a skill because it can be improved (or lost without use). It's not "either I have no idea what 12" is, or I do, and forever shall it be."


I mean, you jumped down PenitentJake's example... I think we can make the assumption in both cases that both units are fairly isolated from the rest of the army, on a flank somewhere.

It's not a skill because I will literally never be able to do it because I was born with lower/non-existent spatial awareness and depth perception, which is literally all that is. I have no idea what 12" is. I can easily mistake 6" for 12", or 1" for 3". 24" and 36" may as well be the same to me. No amount of practice will ever make me able to accurately guess whether something is 1 foot or 2. I can tell you this because I've been "practicing" with tabletop games for years.
It's like saying telling the difference between colors is a skill. Color blind people exist. But people can hone their ability to differentiate colors. if they have that ability in the first place.

 Tawnis wrote:
Rihgu wrote:

4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.



This is actually untrue. An ability is something you are born with, a skill is learned. You can learn to estimate distance/coverage. I was garbage at it when I first started playing, but I was passable before it was removed.

Correct. An ability is something you are born with, indeed. No, I cannot learn to estimate distance/coverage.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:36:14


Post by: Eldarsif


This assertion about what people do and don't do is both an ad-hominem and unhelpful. If you want to address the specific definition of tactics, that's a separate argument, but I'm happy to have it. It's certainly objective, though, not opinion.


Because downplaying tactical choices in Warhammer 40.000 and implying everyone who likes it being some sort of idiots, as you implied in "maybe wargaming is not for you" is so helpful. I know you will say I am mischaracterizing your writings, but the condescension feels very much real to the rest of us.

In tabletop wargames that are weak abstraction of war then yes, it is an opinion as two people are very likely to have differing opinions on how to represent war in an abstract manner. Unless you want to go the Soviet way and try to turn it into mathematical formulas; which you claimed to fail. Hell, StarCraft is a highly tactical game, but it doesn't have any of the components you want which makes me believe that you will somehow diss the game because of your own personal opinion and ideas of what "true tactical" means. Still doesn't change that the game is tactical. Although to be fair as I do not know your personal opinion of StarCraft you might very well love the game and think it is a tactically robust game.

You also confirmed something I felt but had not seen evidence of until today and that is that you play WW2 games. WW2 games are somewhat easier to create formulas around as that is a war that has happened and we can create constraints about the gameplay based off on what happened in years past. Would still be abstract, but at least you have scenarios and data to build around it. Warhammer 40.000 is a fantasy game with super soldiers, ravaging aliens, and ancient civilizations that do not conform to anything we have today, except maybe, and just maybe, Imperial Guard. Everything else is pure abstract fantasy and to clamp old ideas about wars around that is just a limited view on the universe and its potential at large.

I personally have little interest in WW2 games(although I do have a small US Bolt Action army) and I do not want Warhammer 40.000 or Age of Sigmar to become a World War 2 game personally. There is no reason for 40k to become Chain of Command and there is no reason for Chain of Command to become 40k. Homogenization of the hobby is not a positive thing and I would rather have a diverse range of games representing war in different manners than one single, almost GURPS-like system that defines them all. It's why I have armies in several different games so I can play different games when I fancy. I do not want to play Warhammer 40.000 when I play Legion.

However, if you want to create your own homebrew for CoC using 40k figures then more power to you.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:36:49


Post by: Galas


Estimating distances is something most people can train.

But TBH when I'm a giant with bird-eyes perspective, thats not something I care about my wargame. Is literally totally out of inmersion to how well my army should behave, my hability to wess distances.

Is like my hability to do fencing being relevant in how well my units in total war fight.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:41:19


Post by: Tawnis


Rihgu wrote:


 Tawnis wrote:
Rihgu wrote:

4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.



This is actually untrue. An ability is something you are born with, a skill is learned. You can learn to estimate distance/coverage. I was garbage at it when I first started playing, but I was passable before it was removed.

Correct. An ability is something you are born with, indeed. No, I cannot learn to estimate distance/coverage.


I don't understand, do you have some mental or visual issue with being able to perceive distance? I assume you aren't blind since you're playing a tabletop game.

Even if YOU specifically are incapable of it for some reason I can't think of, that still doesn't make it an ability. If you really wanted to split hairs, it would be that you lack the ability to develop that skill.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 15:41:50


Post by: the_scotsman


Wyldhunt wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

I wish they'd lean into characters actually giving commands more. Theoretically, the thing that makes many characters characters is their rank and authority to tell your other units what to do. So rather than boring "kill more betterer" auras, I'd love to see characters have a list of orders they can give out. For instance, I'd love my autarch to be able to give a unit JSJ or the ability to fall back and shoot each turn. No need to turn him into a one man army; let the commanders actually command!

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...


This is how Sigmar works and it is RIDICULOUS how much better it feels as a player...


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 16:12:32


Post by: Mezmorki


 Eldarsif wrote:

This is my entire problem with the arguments here. People have an extremely personal opinion on what is tactical or not with no basis in anything factual. This is also why I hate these topics is because armchair generals - as we all are - go around throwing their authority and definitions as if these things were some holy imperial facts which they aren't. It would be more honest that people would just say they don't like one gameplay or not instead of going on a rant about what is tactical or not, because it is a copout to not admit your own emotions.


I tried to define, for my own purposes and I suppose for this whole discussion, what I meant by tactics vs optimization in the OP. It maybe wasn't the most successfully attempt!

I sympathize with your frustration that the line between the two can be a matter of perspective, and certainly individual preferences and biases jade how people read something being tactics vs optimization.

For me, tactical choices rise above optimization choices because of their uncertain payout in regards to the objective of the game. When facing an interesting tactical decision, it should be hard for me to gauge whether option A or option B is going to be better or worse for me in terms of my ability to win the game. I have to draw on past experience and careful risk assessment. Tactical decisions tend to be more far reaching in terms of affecting future turns, versus optimization which is about squeezing the most out of what you have right now.

I'm going to compare ProHammer to 9th edition when it comes to shooting process, as a point of comparison.

(1) ProHammer requires players to declare targets for ALL shooting attacks before resolving any of them. In 9th, you can shoot with single models, and even single weapons, one at a time if you want to.

Effect: In ProHammer you have to make judgement calls, without knowing the outcome, about how much fire to direct at different targets. Your assessment of threats is more significant because if you under shoot a critical threat, it might leave you open to a counter attack. If you overshoot it you've wasted shots that could've been directed elsewhere. In 9th edition, you can shoot one model/weapon at a time until the precise moment that you neutralize the threat, and then shift focus to the next threat. Shooting order in 9th (and most more recent 40k editions) is a pure optimization exercise in my mind. In ProHammer, you have to consider the "what ifs". What if I don't kill the target? What if I over shoot it and leave other targets untouched? There's far more to consider.

(2) In ProHammer, units can split fire ONCE after passing a successful leadership test. In 9th, individual models can freely shoot at different targets.

Effect: Similar logic as above. Freely split firing in 9th means you can freely optimize your shooting to your hearts content. In ProHammer, you can only do it once, and so it prompts some bigger decision making about how you build your list (strategy level) but tactically what you prioritize. Failing the split fire test, which happens, means you have to make a tough call about which of the two declared targets you want to shoot at. Do you take down the tank with your single melta gunner (and pray they make their hit roll?) or shoot at approaching enemy squad before they close range? The bit of uncertainty/randomness puts you into a situation where you can't purely optimize - but have to make a trade-off instead.

(3) In ProHammer, there is no pre-measuring ranges. In 9th you can premeasure freely.

Effect: Assuming one has a basic grasp on estimating distances, the inability to precisely and exactly "know" if a given model is in range of a target makes model/unit movement more ambiguous but much more interesting. Particularly in situations where I'm faced with the choice of "leaving cover" to most likely get in range of an attack versus staying in cover and "maybe" being in range of an attack. It's surprising how often this comes up in our games and it's often a tough choice. In 9th, with premeasuring, you can make a clear cut choice. If I'm able to stay in cover and be in range - perfect! If not, I can decide whether it's optimal to keep my unit in cover and hope it lives or just then decide to leave cover and make the attack. 9th strips out the uncertainty and let's you optimize.

(4) Lethality. We've done a lot in ProHammer (building on older editions) to trim down the lethality. The old armor/cover save system reduces lethality (and we've actually made a rule where if the AP = Sv then you get a -1 save instead of having your armor negated). Failed morale tests cause fall back moves instead of removing more models from the unit. Units can "go to ground" when shot and gain a bonus cover save. Line of Sight is abstracted for area terrain features creating more LoS blocking (and we've defined center of mass for models, so no shooting a stray tentacle or antenna). Screening units grant cover saves to units behind them, etc. Lots of other factors play into this as well.

Effect: The less lethal the game is, the more likely it is for units to stick around longer on the table. Like a game of chess in mid-game, it's at it's peak complexity/depth when both players have a significant amount of their forces left but those forces are distributed all across the battlefield. Each piece/unit has many potential avenues for movement, which can setup future turns in many different ways. The more lethal the game is, the quicker units are eliminated and the quicker you get to a situation where the table level complexity and variety of potential interactions is decreasing. In other words, the fewer units there are, the smaller the decision space in the game. Creating interesting decisions generally requires a bigger decision space.

Those are some examples of what I value and the mechanics that support "interesting tactical choices" versus optimization ones.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 16:22:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Eldarsif wrote:
This assertion about what people do and don't do is both an ad-hominem and unhelpful. If you want to address the specific definition of tactics, that's a separate argument, but I'm happy to have it. It's certainly objective, though, not opinion.


Because downplaying tactical choices in Warhammer 40.000 and implying everyone who likes it being some sort of idiots, as you implied in "maybe wargaming is not for you" is so helpful. I know you will say I am mischaracterizing your writings, but the condescension feels very much real to the rest of us.

In tabletop wargames that are weak abstraction of war then yes, it is an opinion as two people are very likely to have differing opinions on how to represent war in an abstract manner. Unless you want to go the Soviet way and try to turn it into mathematical formulas; which you claimed to fail. Hell, StarCraft is a highly tactical game, but it doesn't have any of the components you want which makes me believe that you will somehow diss the game because of your own personal opinion and ideas of what "true tactical" means. Still doesn't change that the game is tactical. Although to be fair as I do not know your personal opinion of StarCraft you might very well love the game and think it is a tactically robust game.

You also confirmed something I felt but had not seen evidence of until today and that is that you play WW2 games. WW2 games are somewhat easier to create formulas around as that is a war that has happened and we can create constraints about the gameplay based off on what happened in years past. Would still be abstract, but at least you have scenarios and data to build around it. Warhammer 40.000 is a fantasy game with super soldiers, ravaging aliens, and ancient civilizations that do not conform to anything we have today, except maybe, and just maybe, Imperial Guard. Everything else is pure abstract fantasy and to clamp old ideas about wars around that is just a limited view on the universe and its potential at large.

I personally have little interest in WW2 games(although I do have a small US Bolt Action army) and I do not want Warhammer 40.000 or Age of Sigmar to become a World War 2 game personally. There is no reason for 40k to become Chain of Command and there is no reason for Chain of Command to become 40k. Homogenization of the hobby is not a positive thing and I would rather have a diverse range of games representing war in different manners than one single, almost GURPS-like system that defines them all. It's why I have armies in several different games so I can play different games when I fancy. I do not want to play Warhammer 40.000 when I play Legion.

However, if you want to create your own homebrew for CoC using 40k figures then more power to you.


I accept your post, but there is one thing I think we disagree on.

You say "You also confirmed something I felt but had not seen evidence of until today and that is that you play WW2 games. WW2 games are somewhat easier to create formulas around as that is a war that has happened and we can create constraints about the gameplay based off on what happened in years past. Would still be abstract, but at least you have scenarios and data to build around it. Warhammer 40.000 is a fantasy game with super soldiers, ravaging aliens, and ancient civilizations that do not conform to anything we have today, except maybe, and just maybe, Imperial Guard. Everything else is pure abstract fantasy and to clamp old ideas about wars around that is just a limited view on the universe and its potential at large."

To me, that implies it is difficult to make Warhammer 40k behave like a World War II game, and that is fundamentally NOT what I am asking for, and why I think the claim is spurious.

What I am asking for is that Warhammer 40k behave like a WARgame. There are "tactics" in 40k (the setting, not the game). Whether or not a Chimera with heavy flamers should shoot the orks is a decision an Imperial Guard (not Soviet World War 2) commander has to make. And when he makes that decision, he has to consider things like terrain, distances he cannot accurately measure himself, the clustering or not of enemy units on the table battlefield, the impact of those orks on his overall battleplan, etc. etc. I know this because in the novels, they talk about where infantry have to disembark because the terrain prevents the Chimera from passing without risk - and times where tanks were immobilized taking that risk. The novels talk about tanks driving through enemy infantry with a Tank Shock, ignoring them due to their inability to harm the vehicle, etc. etc.

9th edition 40k does not match the novels/lore. This means that I don't feel like an Imperial Guard commander, I feel like a mathematician-cum-encyclopedia. I am not playing a Warhammer WARgame, I am playing a game with Warhammer windowdressing.

And honestly, the fact that you don't have to fit existing data should make it easier to design, not harder. If this is a universe where vehicles cannot possibly immobilize themselves on terrain? That's fine. Hell, that's awesome - as a treadhead, such a universe would be amazing for tank combat. Heck, you could even design the game first, totally unconstrained, and then design the lore around whatever you come up with. You have total control over how the setting is written, and how the game conforms to those events. Designing the game in that situation should be a breeze!

but, the creators of that universe have, themselves, written in lore that vehicles can immobilize themselves on terrain.

You can have the game function however you want - it's fantasy, after all - but if the game is tied to a setting, then maybe the rules should attempt to replicate that setting.

As it stands, 40k's setting allows for tactical decisions. There are novels that go into the way commanders and officers think, that go into the factors they need to consider. The well-written ones even go into both sides and their thought-processes, and you can watch the tactical evolution in real (fictional?) time. (I still remember Storm of Iron very fondly.)

Those are the actions of (fictionalized and dramatized) military commanders. If the game is a WARgame in this setting, I should be considering the same factors, since I'm trying to be a (fictionalized and dramatized) military commander in that setting. 9th edition is not that.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 16:50:47


Post by: Tyran


40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.

Also I was always low-key bitter that monstrous creatures couldn't "tank" shock their way through infantry in spite of the difference in bulk.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 16:54:26


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tyran wrote:
40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.

Also I was always low-key bitter that monstrous creatures couldn't "tank" shock their way through infantry in spite of the difference in bulk.


Agreed that it has never matched the novels/lore well, but it could be better. The fluff is subjective about certain things too - especially relative combat power between factions. Space Marine lore becomes a lot more believable when you read other factions fighting against them, rather than the "bolter porn" novels. But the types of decisions and thought processes I'm talking about aren't really the same thing as adjusting balance in the narrative and on the tabletop. Whether terrain is a potential hazard for tanks or not is very different (in terms of world/development and universe writing) than whether a Marine can kill only three Tyranids or over a hundred.

And yeah. Other GW systems (and other fantasy systems outside of GW) usually have "barge" mechanics that allow monsters to 'Tank-Shock-like' their way through things. Such a barge mechanic would be cool. Imagine if Living Battering Ram gave Carnifexes a bonus to "barging" things out of the way, rather than just making it more killerer.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 17:16:42


Post by: catbarf


This idea that 40K is harder to design than WW2 games because it's so full of zany weird sci-fi aliens and monsters and robots rather falls flat when a Fleshborer and bolt pistol are basically the same, and a Tyrannofex and Leman Russ behave largely identically. For all the variety in the visuals of the different factions, they all follow the same core mechanics. It's mostly special rules that set them apart.

 Tyran wrote:
40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.


The Starship Troopers miniatures game used a combination of tunnel networks and respawning units to allow the Bug player to field a swarm without actually having a ton of models on the table. The Mobile Infantry player has individually far superior troops, but the Bugs can show up unexpectedly and keep respawning over the course of the game.

That's the sort of core asymmetry that might set a sci-fi game apart from a WW2 wargame mechanically. 40K's never really leaned into that style of design.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 17:45:21


Post by: Tyran


 catbarf wrote:
This idea that 40K is harder to design than WW2 games because it's so full of zany weird sci-fi aliens and monsters and robots rather falls flat when a Fleshborer and bolt pistol are basically the same, and a Tyrannofex and Leman Russ behave largely identically. For all the variety in the visuals of the different factions, they all follow the same core mechanics. It's mostly special rules that set them apart.

 Tyran wrote:
40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.


The Starship Troopers miniatures game used a combination of tunnel networks and respawning units to allow the Bug player to field a swarm without actually having a ton of models on the table. The Mobile Infantry player has individually far superior troops, but the Bugs can show up unexpectedly and keep respawning over the course of the game.

That's the sort of core asymmetry that might set a sci-fi game apart from a WW2 wargame mechanically. 40K's never really leaned into that style of design.

That sounds like designing a game around the asymmetry of 2 factions. The issue 40k has is that occasionally it is an asymmetric game, occasionally it is a symetric game (tbh most of the time with how prevalent Marine players are).
And of course the asymmetry is not something fixed bewteen 2 factions, but dozens of possible combinations between a dozen factions (assuming a 1v1, no team games, which to be fair have never really been properly supported but do happen). And I'm not even getting into the possible different playstyles each faction can have.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 17:52:22


Post by: Daedalus81


 Tyran wrote:
That sounds like designing a game around the asymmetry of 2 factions. The issue 40k has is that occasionally it is an asymmetric game, occasionally it is a symetric game (tbh most of the time with how prevalent Marine players are).
And of course the asymmetry is not something fixed bewteen 2 factions, but dozens of possible combinations between a dozen factions.


GSC is the only blip faction.
Thousand Sons and GK are the premier psykers
Tyranids will have a connected synapse in the new book.
DE is the boat pirate faction.

Marines just happen to be the more popular and more bland factions, but they have their own minor distinctions.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 19:25:37


Post by: Insectum7


 Tawnis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.


For me, I always thought that SM's (and by extension CSM's) should be the one faction that was really hard to kill. When I played the older editions one of the things I disliked was how fast they died and how wildly inconsistent it was with the lore. Personally, I've always thought that the Space Marine army should have been designed kind of like the current Custodes style where you have a couple of super strong squads trying to take on a much larger army. But then GW wouldn't be able to sell anywhere near as many marine models and they are their flagship army so...
See, I can't get behind this at all because many of those units from other factions were originally set up to have certain advantages/balance points when contesting to Marines, so much so as to be defining features of said units.

Genestealers are a prime example. In Space Hulk they took Terminators apart in CC, and for the first 15(?) years of their existence in the lore they continued to be extremely lethal against Marines in CC, the balancing factor being that they had to get there through a torrent of shooting. Genestealers aren't half as dangerous to Marines as they used to be, and it's a sad, sad state.

For a long, long time, Eldar Aspect Warriors were balanced around roughly equal in value to Marines, but with their own specialist skew. Banshees would slaughter Marines in CC, but Marines would slaughter Banshees with shooting. Dark Reapers would slaughter Marines with shooting, but Marines would slaughter Reapers in CC. Shoot the punchy stuff and punch the shooty stuff. It's an ideal balance. But no more. Individually a Banshee is a shadow of her former self against Marines. Like Genestealers, Banshees used to butcher Terminators ffs.

Marines simply being all uber is just gross, imo. It is a blight on the game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 19:49:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Also, if you read other fluff, Marines aren't quite "2 wound" material.

Lasguns one-shot them fairly routinely in Guard books, for example (once they can penetrate the armor, which is usually what takes more than one shot).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 20:16:07


Post by: Insectum7


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, if you read other fluff, Marines aren't quite "2 wound" material.

Lasguns one-shot them fairly routinely in Guard books, for example (once they can penetrate the armor, which is usually what takes more than one shot).
Right, and you get into the area where troops become so incompetent you get the "feels bad man." At the moment it takes four entire lasgun squads to drop a single marine beyond 12". (No orders) which is a problem. When a player maneuvers their unis into a spot that looks advantageous but then achieves basically nothing, that's an uneasant feeling.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 22:19:29


Post by: the_scotsman


Honestly I'm at the point where I don't complain that any unit in the game feels too durable.

Nothing feels in any way "super" in 40k. Your units no matter what they are cower behind whatever ruins you've got, then pop out turn 1-3 like they're MTG cards you're sending out to attack, they do one thing (usually obilterate one enemy unit) and then they get summarily obliterated.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/29 23:26:58


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k. The game is too lethal. A recent London GT final was over after the first shooting phase, as the DW player had almost nothing left of his army once the AdMech were done with him. He conceded on the spot.

"Marines are tough" only in a relative sense. Nothing is all that tough in 8th/9th.

 Galas wrote:
Estimating distances is something most people can train.
Yep. When I first started playing 3rd Ed I was rubbish at it. By the time that rule went away, I was usually within half an inch. It's just something you get better at estimating.

But ultimately the rule didn't really add anything to the game. I'm glad it's gone.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 00:17:03


Post by: Insectum7


 the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly I'm at the point where I don't complain that any unit in the game feels too durable.
Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).

That is not fething cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k.
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 00:27:17


Post by: Tyran


 Insectum7 wrote:
Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).

That is not fething cool.

That's false and you know it. Space Marines have gotten considerably more durable, most of everything else hasn't. Genestealers kill Tau, Guardmen, Sisters of Battle, etc. just the same (and actually far better than what they did in 6th, 5th or even 4th).


Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?

H.B.M.C. point is that Carnifexes should be more durable than Rhinos, not that Rhinos should be less durable. Sounds similar but actually is not the same.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 00:30:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


To be fair, Genestealers were monstrous things in 2nd Ed. WS7 put them on par with Space Marine Captains, and although 1:1 wouldn't be a fair fight, you get 3-4 Genestealers onto a single Marine Captain, and he's in trouble.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
You missed my point. Durability - as in things being too durable - isn't something to complain about because everything dies to quickly in ultra-lethal 9th.

Carnifexes are still less durable than Rhinos, despite this.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 00:44:45


Post by: Insectum7


 Tyran wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).

That is not fething cool.

That's false and you know it. Space Marines have gotten considerably more durable, most of everything else hasn't. Genestealers kill Tau, Guardmen, Sisters of Battle, etc. just the same (and actually far better than what they did in 6th, 5th or even 4th).

They got less lethal against the most popular army in the game. The army that fields the unit (Terminators) which famously squares off against Genestealers in close quarters in a game all it's own (Space Hulk), where Genestealers individually mean near-instant death in CC. And I'll stand by it since the exchange began with the subject of SM durability.

Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?

H.B.M.C. point is that Carnifexes should be more durable than Rhinos, not that Rhinos should be less durable. Sounds similar but actually is not the same.
More similar than dismissing the original issue by remarking "everything is too lethal" which is a pretty broad brush stroke.

TLDR: "It's fine that genestealers comparatively suck at killing marines since everything else is good at killing marines, even though genestealers were known for killing marines." Doesn't fly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 Insectum7 wrote:
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
You missed my point. Durability - as in things being too durable - isn't something to complain about because everything dies to quickly in ultra-lethal 9th.

Carnifexes are still less durable than Rhinos, despite this.

Ahh, but simply pumping up durability for one troop type while leaving other troop types to rot, sucks. There's a "unit is known for quality X" issue, and this is where the Carnifex comes in. In opposition to Marine units, the Carnifex (once known for it's durability) is now much less so. Genestealers, once known for their Marine-killing prowess, are now much less so.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 01:03:38


Post by: Galas


I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.

And I can accept that 1w marines felt durable in 3rd or 4th, I didn't played those editions. They were paper mache since the lethality of the game sky rocketed.

The truth is most stuff became weaker in their own codex and factions to allow for room for new toys that GW wanted to sell. Necrons Warriors became weakers for inmortals, carnifex for the other tyranid big bugs, aspect warriors for wraith constructs and bikers, etc, etc...

I know, once upon a time, a dreadnought was something to be reckon with. Now they are less than nothing. Times change, and big toys sells for big bucks.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 01:16:55


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Carnifexes aren't less durable because Marines are moreso. The two things are unrelated. One is not a result of the other.

I use the Rhino as a simple comparison because a Rhino should not be tougher than a Carnifex.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 01:27:02


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).

That is not fething cool.

That's false and you know it. Space Marines have gotten considerably more durable, most of everything else hasn't. Genestealers kill Tau, Guardmen, Sisters of Battle, etc. just the same (and actually far better than what they did in 6th, 5th or even 4th).

They got less lethal against the most popular army in the game. The army that fields the unit (Terminators) which famously squares off against Genestealers in close quarters in a game all it's own (Space Hulk), where Genestealers individually mean near-instant death in CC. And I'll stand by it since the exchange began with the subject of SM durability.

Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?

H.B.M.C. point is that Carnifexes should be more durable than Rhinos, not that Rhinos should be less durable. Sounds similar but actually is not the same.
More similar than dismissing the original issue by remarking "everything is too lethal" which is a pretty broad brush stroke.

TLDR: "It's fine that genestealers comparatively suck at killing marines since everything else is good at killing marines, even though genestealers were known for killing marines." Doesn't fly.

So, in your opinion, how many Genestealers should it take to kill a terminator? Or just a standard marine?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 01:54:39


Post by: Eldenfirefly


We probably shouldn't use the 8th edition codex as any basis of reference. They are just waiting for their 9th edition codex and being propped up by cheap points and possibly a few tricks or strategems at this point. I mean, there is no way you can justify a chaos space marine squad that is shooting AP 0 bolters, has no doctrines, and has 1W per model if you want to compare. Its just sad.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 02:07:48


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Carnifexes aren't less durable because Marines are moreso. The two things are unrelated. One is not a result of the other.
Never said they were the result of one another. My observation is merely that both Carnifexes and Genestealers have continuously eroded in their "pillars of identity". They are somewhat related. Game gets more lethal, eroding Carnifex durability. Marine players wah. Marines get tougher. Genestealer lethality becomes greatly reduced vs. Marine

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

So, in your opinion, how many Genestealers should it take to kill a terminator? Or just a standard marine?
Marine? 1.
Terminator 1-2.

Not like a guaranteed kill, but a substantial probabiliy.

 Galas wrote:
I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.

Genestealers wrecked Terminators on the open spaces of 2nd ed too. I'll try to run numbers for later editions too sometime soon.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 02:10:13


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Tawnis wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.


For me, I always thought that SM's (and by extension CSM's) should be the one faction that was really hard to kill. When I played the older editions one of the things I disliked was how fast they died and how wildly inconsistent it was with the lore. Personally, I've always thought that the Space Marine army should have been designed kind of like the current Custodes style where you have a couple of super strong squads trying to take on a much larger army. But then GW wouldn't be able to sell anywhere near as many marine models and they are their flagship army so...

I think "super marines" would have been a valid direction to go. I'm honestly okay with marines' "thing" being that they're action heroes covered in plot armour who frequently perform better than logic dictates they should. But it does make it tricky to balance other armies that are meant to be nearly or similarly elite around that. As others pointed out, a banshee should probably win melee against a marine. A necron immortal should probably be tougher than a marine. There's probably a way to elevate all of the "elite" armies so that they feel right compared to marines while expanding the difference between the elites and the more mookish armies, but it's a challenge.

I suspect that shrinking the scale of the game back down would make this a lot easier. I remember playing some Zone Mortalis games in 7th (very small scale games set in tight hallways and small rooms). At that game size, without the threat of an artillery piece shelling me off the table, my extra point of toughness and armor compared to other armours was actually noticeable and felt "right." I really need to get off my butt and finish jotting down a variant ruleset for Combat Patrol-sized games.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 02:22:12


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k. The game is too lethal. A recent London GT final was over after the first shooting phase, as the DW player had almost nothing left of his army once the AdMech were done with him. He conceded on the spot.

"Marines are tough" only in a relative sense. Nothing is all that tough in 8th/9th.


Important details on that game. LGT had a lot of rounds meaning you needed to go 100 points to make it to the top brackets and people brought lists that gamble on first turn. Four planes is super hard to hide from and there's a case to be made for 1 flyer per detachment. Also, Admech planes are still huge value and super maneuverable. Their bombers are also not limited like others. Some tweaks to those models ( and Admech and DE in particular ) would go a long way to help.

A note for people who think equipment shouldn't be strats : chaff launcher is stupid cheap - this one should be a strat. Then you don't have all planes getting -1D.

That terrain was also impossible to hide in with 6 dreadnoughts. Still, he deployed aggressively banking on taking the first turn.

I'm actually glad the game went that way, because it might get GW's attention a little more having such a dud game at a high profile event.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 02:39:18


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Important details on that game. LGT had a lot of rounds meaning you needed to go 100 points to make it to the top brackets and people brought lists that gamble on first turn. Four planes is super hard to hide from and there's a case to be made for 1 flyer per detachment. Also, Admech planes are still huge value and super maneuverable. Their bombers are also not limited like others. Some tweaks to those models ( and Admech and DE in particular ) would go a long way to help.
He still wiped his opponent out first turn. The game is ultra-lethal. This shouldn't be possible, no matter the "risks" you're adding.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
A note for people who think equipment shouldn't be strats : chaff launcher is stupid cheap - this one should be a strat. Then you don't have all planes getting -1D.
If the chaff launcher is causing problems, then you change the rules of the chaff launcher, or change its cost. Making it a strat isn't a solution, and this in no way strengthens any "equipment should be strats" nonsense.

Not that the chaff launchers played any part in that game given that his opponent never actually got to play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That terrain was also impossible to hide in with 6 dreadnoughts. Still, he deployed aggressively banking on taking the first turn.
You shouldn't need to hide your entire army in order to play the fething game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm actually glad the game went that way, because it might get GW's attention a little more having such a dud game at a high profile event.
What will it achieve? They'll see how busted DE and AdMech are, do nothing to change them, and "tone down" any of the upcoming books, leaving us with a crop of books that suck compared to the still-reigning DE and AdMech.




Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 03:18:59


Post by: JNAProductions


How many Genestealers should it take to kill a Space Marine Captain in one round of combat?

Numbers in the spoiler below.

Spoiler:
An ordinary Captain, at T4 W5 3+/4++.
5 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at a 4+, so 10 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 20 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 30 attacks are needed.

A Bike Captain, at T5 W6 3+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 12 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 36 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 54 attacks are needed.

A Gravis Captain, at T5 W7 3+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 14 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 42 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 63 attacks are needed.

A Terminator Captain with Storm Shield, at T4 W6 1+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 21.6 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 43.2 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 64.8 attacks are needed. Round up to 65.

Finally, a Terminator Chapter Master with Angel Artifice and a Storm Shield, at T5 W7 1+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 25.3 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at a 5+, so 75.6 hits are needed.
All hits are done at a 3+, so 113.4 attacks are needed. Round up to 114.

Genestealers have 3 attacks each in squads of 9 or less, 4 attacks each in squads of 10 or more. They go up to 20-strong squads. They are 13 PPM. They can also take Toxin Sacs for 5 PPM, which lets them do one extra Damage on 6+ to-wound, which actually helps a lot. They can be made to hit on a 2+, with a Broodlord.

However, without support (which the Captain can also receive, in the form of things like an Apothecary) it would take a minimum of 10 Genestealers to one-round an ordinary Captain. Make them tougher? Bike needs 14. Gravis 17. Terminator with Shield 18. And a Chapter Master with Storm Shield? Can't even be taken down by a 20-man Genestealer squad in one go.

If we buff these Genestealers up, giving them a Broodlord and Toxin Sacs... Well, first off, they're at least three times the cost of the Character they're trying to kill.
And second off, they do...

80 attacks
400/6 or 200/3 hits.
200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 5, 200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 6.
100/54 or 50/27 failed saves at D1, 100/18 or 50/9 failed saves at D2.

This does kill him-so how many Genestealers can you afford to lose before you can't?

Running the numbers, it looks like you need at least 11 Genestealers to, on average, kill said Chapter Master.

44 attacks
220/6 or 110/3
110/18 or 55/9 on 5, plus 110/18 or 55/9 on 6
55/54 at D1, 55/18 at D2
7 damage total, just barely.

What was the point of all this? I dunno, I like math. But it's not all relevant, which is why it's spoilered.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 03:25:06


Post by: The_Real_Chris


Ah yes, the genestealer. I loved my genestealer invasion force back in the day…

The point around 40k not being very wargamy is a valid one, and I think it’s a deliberate design choice. There is the wargame market but the market for games like MtG is far larger. It makes commercial sense to optimise for that than the kind of strategic and tactic choices that go into wargames, though as we see it clearly has impacts on the playerbase’s happiness. Personally the MtG style gameplay of 9th with its masses of shallow rules puts me off, I have ended up playing other GW games (kill team being the current craze), but guys in my club absolutely love it.

I think it’s cool that GW has multiple ways to play with its background - underworlds, kill team, AT, AI, etc so if you don’t like one game you can use your models in another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should add unlike the old guard who came from a wargames background today’s GWs designers come from a far more game background and that will influence how they design stuff.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 06:35:36


Post by: Spoletta


I don't think we need math to know that stealers are in trouble right now. We know that from experience.

Hopefully, them getting to inflict 2 damage by default on 6's to wound will make them a little better.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 07:48:39


Post by: Insectum7


 JNAProductions wrote:
How many Genestealers should it take to kill a Space Marine Captain in one round of combat?

Numbers in the spoiler below.

Spoiler:
An ordinary Captain, at T4 W5 3+/4++.
5 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at a 4+, so 10 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 20 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 30 attacks are needed.

A Bike Captain, at T5 W6 3+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 12 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 36 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 54 attacks are needed.

A Gravis Captain, at T5 W7 3+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 14 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 42 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 63 attacks are needed.

A Terminator Captain with Storm Shield, at T4 W6 1+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 21.6 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 43.2 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 64.8 attacks are needed. Round up to 65.

Finally, a Terminator Chapter Master with Angel Artifice and a Storm Shield, at T5 W7 1+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 25.3 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at a 5+, so 75.6 hits are needed.
All hits are done at a 3+, so 113.4 attacks are needed. Round up to 114.

Genestealers have 3 attacks each in squads of 9 or less, 4 attacks each in squads of 10 or more. They go up to 20-strong squads. They are 13 PPM. They can also take Toxin Sacs for 5 PPM, which lets them do one extra Damage on 6+ to-wound, which actually helps a lot. They can be made to hit on a 2+, with a Broodlord.

However, without support (which the Captain can also receive, in the form of things like an Apothecary) it would take a minimum of 10 Genestealers to one-round an ordinary Captain. Make them tougher? Bike needs 14. Gravis 17. Terminator with Shield 18. And a Chapter Master with Storm Shield? Can't even be taken down by a 20-man Genestealer squad in one go.

If we buff these Genestealers up, giving them a Broodlord and Toxin Sacs... Well, first off, they're at least three times the cost of the Character they're trying to kill.
And second off, they do...

80 attacks
400/6 or 200/3 hits.
200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 5, 200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 6.
100/54 or 50/27 failed saves at D1, 100/18 or 50/9 failed saves at D2.

This does kill him-so how many Genestealers can you afford to lose before you can't?

Running the numbers, it looks like you need at least 11 Genestealers to, on average, kill said Chapter Master.

44 attacks
220/6 or 110/3
110/18 or 55/9 on 5, plus 110/18 or 55/9 on 6
55/54 at D1, 55/18 at D2
7 damage total, just barely.

What was the point of all this? I dunno, I like math. But it's not all relevant, which is why it's spoilered.

Nice work.

Incidentally, in 2nd edition, if five Genestealers charged five Marines, the outcome was an almost guaranteed dead five Marines.

In fact if five Genestealers charged ten Marines allowing for each Genestealers to contact two Marines, the likely outcome would be ten dead Marines.

I don't think Terminators fared much better. Combat was very different (and I'm not good at mathing it up) but if there were no die rolls to contest the number of hits (and Genestealers had a big advantage there) the outcome of a 1v1 match would be the Genestealer gets 4 hits at 2+ to wound at a -3 save modifier, excessively chopping up any Marine and giving a Terminator a tough combination of save rolls.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 08:21:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Four attacks at WS7 made it very unlikely that anything other than Marine Captains (and other WS7 things) could face them.

If they rolled a 6, their combat score was 13. If a Marine rolled a 6, his combat score was 10. Congrats - the 'Stealer just hit you 3 times!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 08:31:00


Post by: Kitane


Genestealers should get 4A, 2D on 6s, 2W and either +1S or +1 to wound when outnumbering the unit they are attacking. And then go up in price by several points like the old marines.

They were comparable to marines - more fragile against shooting, more lethal in melee, similar or equal cost over the multiple editions.

Their issue is that they struggle to make a meaningful trade - they generally cost more than what they can reach and kill and then they die like bugs on a windshield to any random selection of secondary firepower.

They need durability boost and going to 2W instead of T5 makes it different than Orks (and keeps them closer to their original power level).


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 09:01:23


Post by: Spoletta


4A and 2D on 6s already makes them the lethal beasts they need to be. Never understood why they are troops though.

Nid troops should be hormagants and termagants. Instead for some reason we get warriors (which should be HQ), stealers (which should be fast attack) and rippers which should be no slot.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 09:39:05


Post by: Ordana


 Galas wrote:
I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.

And I can accept that 1w marines felt durable in 3rd or 4th, I didn't played those editions. They were paper mache since the lethality of the game sky rocketed.

The truth is most stuff became weaker in their own codex and factions to allow for room for new toys that GW wanted to sell. Necrons Warriors became weakers for inmortals, carnifex for the other tyranid big bugs, aspect warriors for wraith constructs and bikers, etc, etc...

I know, once upon a time, a dreadnought was something to be reckon with. Now they are less than nothing. Times change, and big toys sells for big bucks.
I remember the Tau Riptide getting released, and suddenly my army had a unit that threw out a 5" template that didn't miss often (hit on 3+ and if missed it scattered 2d6-3), wounded all marines under it on a 2+ and didn't give a save.

Entire space marine units just disappeared with each shot.

Things have only gotten worse since.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 09:45:50


Post by: Strg Alt


 Galas wrote:
I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.

And I can accept that 1w marines felt durable in 3rd or 4th, I didn't played those editions. They were paper mache since the lethality of the game sky rocketed.

The truth is most stuff became weaker in their own codex and factions to allow for room for new toys that GW wanted to sell. Necrons Warriors became weakers for inmortals, carnifex for the other tyranid big bugs, aspect warriors for wraith constructs and bikers, etc, etc...

I know, once upon a time, a dreadnought was something to be reckon with. Now they are less than nothing. Times change, and big toys sells for big bucks.


That's why a sales-driven ruleset is so bad.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 10:23:02


Post by: Spoletta


That meme has been put to rest a lot of times and then burned again at the stake those times someone tried to resurrect it.

GW's rules and power creep are not sales-driven. That's about as proven as it gets.

Balance issues are simply a matter of someone not doing his work like he should.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 11:28:04


Post by: Mezmorki


Oh look, we somehow ended up where all good threads go to die.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 11:37:44


Post by: vipoid


 Galas wrote:
I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else.


I think Terminators having 2 wounds (with regular Marines remaining at 1) would have been perfectly reasonable.

Even in prior editions (before GW went all-in on wounds), it would have put them on a similar level to Nobz, which I think would have been fine.


 Ordana wrote:
I remember the Tau Riptide getting released, and suddenly my army had a unit that threw out a 5" template that didn't miss often (hit on 3+ and if missed it scattered 2d6-3), wounded all marines under it on a 2+ and didn't give a save.

Entire space marine units just disappeared with each shot.

Things have only gotten worse since.


Ah yes, I remember the Helldrake being similar - though with the added advantage of being nigh indestructible and having no risk of its weapon scattering.

Hell, I also remember when I tried an infantry-guard army in 7th edition. There were so many large blasts and torrent flamers (all S6+ and at least AP4) that at least half my army was just vaporised outright on turn 1.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 11:57:54


Post by: the_scotsman


 Insectum7 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly I'm at the point where I don't complain that any unit in the game feels too durable.
Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).

That is not fething cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k.
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?


Yeah, luckily the leaks for the GSC codex say theyre going to base A4 and rending claws will be D2 on a 6.

you never ever ever ever need to wait that long for something that's not deadly enough to be made more deadly in 9th edition


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 12:22:13


Post by: Spoletta


I mean, it has been a quite consistent design that melee weapons are getting more lethal in 9th compared to 8th.



Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 12:33:58


Post by: Kitane


There is nothing confirmed about these leaks and GSC has seen its fair share of completely made-up codex changes in the past.

2D on 6s would be fluffy and reasonable in terms of power, but I am not looking forward to fast-rolling these only to watch the enemy throw out most of the extra damage.

Slow rolling genestealers isn't an option.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 12:44:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


Kitane wrote:
There is nothing confirmed about these leaks and GSC has seen its fair share of completely made-up codex changes in the past.

2D on 6s would be fluffy and reasonable in terms of power, but I am not looking forward to fast-rolling these only to watch the enemy throw out most of the extra damage.

Slow rolling genestealers isn't an option.

Why? You're already doing it for your rends. Aren't you?


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 12:55:22


Post by: Kitane


Saves and wound allocation? Sure, but all the damage is D1 now. Well, no one is using Toxin sacs, no one sane.

But with D1 and rending D2 on 6s to wound the opponent will be able to allocate them in a way that wastes D2 wounds on overkill, making the buff mostly symbolic against 2W and even 3W models.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:08:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I don't track 40k competitively, but did someone literally lose a game on the top of Turn 1 recently?

That's what this thread seems to have said.

That's 7th edition levels of shenanigans. Let's see how long it takes to get fixed, since that's what GW's selling itself as - "we fix issues fast!".


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:17:41


Post by: Slipspace


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't track 40k competitively, but did someone literally lose a game on the top of Turn 1 recently?

That's what this thread seems to have said.

That's 7th edition levels of shenanigans. Let's see how long it takes to get fixed, since that's what GW's selling itself as - "we fix issues fast!".


Yes, in the London GT. The excuse going around for this partially blames the bad terrain. There's some truth to that, but not a lot, IMO. The majority of the damage the AdMech player did was with 4 planes and a teleported blob of infantry, so terrain would have been a non-issue anyway. Basically the AdMech player turned on all their buffs and removed something like 4 Dreads, a relic Whirlwind and a bunch of infantry in one shooting phase (with a little help from the bombers in the movement phase). Deathwatch player conceded before the end of the shooting phase. Not exactly the mark of a tactically deep game.

There were some mitigating circumstances though. The tourney structure seemed pretty stupid. They had ~600 players but nowhere near enough rounds to determine a winner properly so they used VPs as the tie-breaker, leading to people building armies to score max points, kind of like an all-or-nothing approach. So there were, I think, 16 undefeated players but only the best 4 made it to the semi-finals.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:19:53


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Slipspace wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't track 40k competitively, but did someone literally lose a game on the top of Turn 1 recently?

That's what this thread seems to have said.

That's 7th edition levels of shenanigans. Let's see how long it takes to get fixed, since that's what GW's selling itself as - "we fix issues fast!".


Yes, in the London GT. The excuse going around for this partially blames the bad terrain. There's some truth to that, but not a lot, IMO. The majority of the damage the AdMech player did was with 4 planes and a teleported blob of infantry, so terrain would have been a non-issue anyway. Basically the AdMech player turned on all their buffs and removed something like 4 Dreads, a relic Whirlwind and a bunch of infantry in one shooting phase (with a little help from the bombers in the movement phase). Deathwatch player conceded before the end of the shooting phase. Not exactly the mark of a tactically deep game.

There were some mitigating circumstances though. The tourney structure seemed pretty stupid. They had ~600 players but nowhere near enough rounds to determine a winner properly so they used VPs as the tie-breaker, leading to people building armies to score max points, kind of like an all-or-nothing approach. So there were, I think, 16 undefeated players but only the best 4 made it to the semi-finals.


Thanks. My little Steel Legion Chimeras feel just like they would in 7th in light of that. Disheartening.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:25:13


Post by: catbarf


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Kitane wrote:
There is nothing confirmed about these leaks and GSC has seen its fair share of completely made-up codex changes in the past.

2D on 6s would be fluffy and reasonable in terms of power, but I am not looking forward to fast-rolling these only to watch the enemy throw out most of the extra damage.

Slow rolling genestealers isn't an option.

Why? You're already doing it for your rends. Aren't you?


With current rend, it affects saves. So it doesn't matter which order you roll rends vs non-rends in, the successes add up in the end and then wounds are allocated. That makes them easy to fast-roll; just roll all the normal saves and then roll all the rend saves.

With D2, it suddenly matters a lot the exact order you allocate hits in, because against W2 models the order determines how many of the D2 attacks are wasted as overkill.

Example: Against five Intercessors, if you score 2 1-damage wounds and 2 2-damage ones, this sequence of allocation:
1-2-1-2
Results in two dead Intercessors, while this sequence:
2-1-1-2
Results in three dead Intercessors.

There is no statistically-equal to fast-roll it; you have to slow-roll every single hit. The double-damage-on-6s mechanic has always struck me as the surest sign that GW doesn't really playtest the rules they write.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:27:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 catbarf wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Kitane wrote:
There is nothing confirmed about these leaks and GSC has seen its fair share of completely made-up codex changes in the past.

2D on 6s would be fluffy and reasonable in terms of power, but I am not looking forward to fast-rolling these only to watch the enemy throw out most of the extra damage.

Slow rolling genestealers isn't an option.

Why? You're already doing it for your rends. Aren't you?


With current rend, it affects saves. So it doesn't matter which order you roll rends vs non-rends in, the successes add up in the end and then wounds are allocated.

With D2, it suddenly matters a lot the exact order you apply wounds in, because against W2 models the order determines how many of the D2 attacks are wasted as overkill.

Example: Against five Intercessors, if you score 2 1-damage wounds and 2 2-damage ones, this sequence of allocation:
1-2-1-2
Results in two dead Intercessors, while this sequence:
2-1-1-2
Results in three dead Intercessors.

There is no statistically-equal to fast-roll it. The double-damage-on-6s mechanic has always struck me as the surest sign that GW doesn't really playtest the rules they write.


You almost have to roll the wounds one-at-a-time to ensure they're applied in the correct order...


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:30:02


Post by: Tyel


Yeah, I guess nothing stops your opponent rolling the 1 wound saves until one fails, then rolling the 2 wound saves until one fails, then going back to the one wound saves.

Seems kind of a "that guy" approach though. We usually just say you can roll all the one wound or two wound saves together as you choose.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:31:38


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Tyel wrote:
Yeah, I guess nothing stops your opponent rolling the 1 wound saves until one fails, then rolling the 2 wound saves until one fails, then going back to the one wound saves.

Seems kind of a "that guy" approach though. We usually just say you can roll all the one wound or two wound saves together as you choose.


Well, that would be illegal, since Fast Rolling is supposed to be a shortcut, not the rules.

What the legal way to do it would be to roll the wounds from the Genestealers one-at-a-time, applying each single result in turn (so I roll a 6, 2 wounds, a not-6, 1 wound, a 1, no wound, a not-6, 1 wound, a 2, no wound...)

etc etc.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 13:32:42


Post by: catbarf


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You almost have to roll the wounds one-at-a-time to ensure they're applied in the correct order...


Yep. If double-damage triggers on a wound roll of 6, that means once you've fast-rolled to hit, you then have to slow-roll from to-wound onwards.

So allocate a hit, roll to wound, see if you get double damage or not, work all the way through saves, repeat...

In practice, I suspect most players are opting to batch the double-damage and just allocate it all at once, but in certain matchups this can dramatically reduce the effectiveness like Kitane said. And there's no RAW way to do so; it's a workaround for a very clunky mechanic.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 14:04:35


Post by: Gadzilla666


Kitane wrote:
Saves and wound allocation? Sure, but all the damage is D1 now. Well, no one is using Toxin sacs, no one sane.

But with D1 and rending D2 on 6s to wound the opponent will be able to allocate them in a way that wastes D2 wounds on overkill, making the buff mostly symbolic against 2W and even 3W models.

Ah, ok, got it. Yeah, that's not good.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 14:30:22


Post by: Mezmorki


GW rules have a blind spot for how to handle single rolls and allocation vs. fast rolling with loads of dice. The rules technically only are designed to address single rolls, with fast rolling being a nebulously defined option. It's really lazy.

FWIW in ProHammer, we designed the entire thing explicitly such that fast rolling is ALWAYS what you do (every model in a unit that wants to shoot at a specific target ALWAYS shoots all at the same time), and we then handle how the allocation of wounds + hits works accounting for the most convoluted cases - e.g. many different weapon profiles hitting a unit with mixed armor/toughness/cover and with different hit models having different equipment, being multi-wound, etc. Works perfectly (and also avoids the old 5th edition wound allocation shennanigans)


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 14:39:16


Post by: vipoid


 Mezmorki wrote:
GW rules have a blind spot for how to handle single rolls and allocation vs. fast rolling with loads of dice. The rules technically only are designed to address single rolls, with fast rolling being a nebulously defined option. It's really lazy.


bUt 9tH eDiTiOn'S rUlEs ArE gReAt BeCaUsE tHeY'rE sO sHoRt AnD sTrEaMlInEd.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 15:51:31


Post by: vict0988


 vipoid wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:
GW rules have a blind spot for how to handle single rolls and allocation vs. fast rolling with loads of dice. The rules technically only are designed to address single rolls, with fast rolling being a nebulously defined option. It's really lazy.


bUt 9tH eDiTiOn'S rUlEs ArE gReAt BeCaUsE tHeY'rE sO sHoRt AnD sTrEaMlInEd.

9th edition has a flaw? Throw that gak in the garbage!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 15:55:15


Post by: PenitentJake


 Insectum7 wrote:


I don't think Terminators fared much better. Combat was very different (and I'm not good at mathing it up) but if there were no die rolls to contest the number of hits (and Genestealers had a big advantage there) the outcome of a 1v1 match would be the Genestealer gets 4 hits at 2+ to wound at a -3 save modifier, excessively chopping up any Marine and giving a Terminator a tough combination of save rolls.


Terminators took their saves as 3+ on two dice. So with -3 save mod, all they had to do was roll a 7 on two dice, which is actually the most likely number to come up on 2d6.

Genestealers wrecked Marines in 2nd ed, not terminators. They actually did better against vehicles in 2nd than termies because CC attacks always used rear armour if I remember correctly.

And while Genstealers wrecked termies in Space Hulk, the marine player almost always killed somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5 stealers per marine before they could close to CC. If missions in Spacehulk had been built using points, the trading of casualties would be fairly even.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 16:24:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Important details on that game. LGT had a lot of rounds meaning you needed to go 100 points to make it to the top brackets and people brought lists that gamble on first turn. Four planes is super hard to hide from and there's a case to be made for 1 flyer per detachment. Also, Admech planes are still huge value and super maneuverable. Their bombers are also not limited like others. Some tweaks to those models ( and Admech and DE in particular ) would go a long way to help.
He still wiped his opponent out first turn. The game is ultra-lethal. This shouldn't be possible, no matter the "risks" you're adding.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
A note for people who think equipment shouldn't be strats : chaff launcher is stupid cheap - this one should be a strat. Then you don't have all planes getting -1D.
If the chaff launcher is causing problems, then you change the rules of the chaff launcher, or change its cost. Making it a strat isn't a solution, and this in no way strengthens any "equipment should be strats" nonsense.

Not that the chaff launchers played any part in that game given that his opponent never actually got to play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That terrain was also impossible to hide in with 6 dreadnoughts. Still, he deployed aggressively banking on taking the first turn.
You shouldn't need to hide your entire army in order to play the fething game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm actually glad the game went that way, because it might get GW's attention a little more having such a dud game at a high profile event.
What will it achieve? They'll see how busted DE and AdMech are, do nothing to change them, and "tone down" any of the upcoming books, leaving us with a crop of books that suck compared to the still-reigning DE and AdMech.




Well, he wasn't wiped out - it was about 700 points. He was moody enough to concede and not attempt to go further. It is likely he would have lost, but since the only outcome is winning rather than picking up max points there was little desire for him to go on that uphill battle.

If chaff launchers didn't exist he could probably pull down 2 or 3 of the planes since Tome would have given him full rerolls to wound.

It's ok for things like chaff launchers to be strong, because you don't want everything to be -1 to hit or some variation of that. It is just that stronger things need to be more limited. More points is all well and good until you price it too high and then you overpaid for your planes when you come up against Thousand Sons with an Orrery.

Hiding your army is the only thing that prevents damage in an IGOUGO system. You can make everything hit like a wet noodle and have long games that favor large numbers of models, because everything takes so much to kill. I don't know that it would be fun.

People want tactics, but what kind of tactic is it where you can put your guys in the open and it doesn't matter than your opponent went first? That seems antithetical.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 16:33:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hiding your army is the only thing that prevents damage in an IGOUGO system. You can make everything hit like a wet noodle and have long games that favor large numbers of models, because everything takes so much to kill. I don't know that it would be fun.


Orrrrrrrrrrr you could give more ways for units to interact with each other and the table than "kill, die, or become harder to kill/die"

Like, say, suppression mechanics (your shooting can interfere with enemy shooting) or pinning mechanics (your shooting can interfere with enemy mobility) or disruption mechanics (your shooting can interfere with enemy leadership/c2) or battlefield manipulation mechanics (like being able to fire smoke rounds / smoke grenades to obscure areas of open ground and facilitate maneuver).

Heck, it's a whacky sci-fi game - all of those above are "only" World War 2 considerations. Have drones with cool decision trees, so your opponent can muck with them in strange ways (like the old Robot decision trees from 1ed). Have units with concerns like Honor or Wrath that forces them to maneuver in a certain way, allowing the opponent to counter-play them but also giving them a buff against units they bonk on the head! Represent real command-and-control to give your opponents something to attack other than just your bodies on the field!


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 16:53:18


Post by: Mezmorki


I was reading the 2nd edition rulebook the other day and was reminded of the rules for "hiding" units. Units in cover relative to enemy LoS could declare they were hiding on their turn, and would be totally out-of-sight unless the enemy got within detection range (which was their initiative value I think). Units stayed hidden until they moved or shot. Could combine this with overwatch to setup ambushes. You could also fire blast weapons and template weapons towards hidden units, and of course those had a chance to hit/wound. Pretty epic really.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 16:53:47


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding your army is the only thing that prevents damage in an IGOUGO system. You can make everything hit like a wet noodle and have long games that favor large numbers of models, because everything takes so much to kill. I don't know that it would be fun.

People want tactics, but what kind of tactic is it where you can put your guys in the open and it doesn't matter than your opponent went first? That seems antithetical.


There's a solution provided by 3rd-4th. Reduce the number of high power weapons, and reduce the effective ranges of battle rifles. Then make Morale worth something, especially in CC.

Then armies spend a turn or two jockying for position and advantage to gain the initiative and advantage over where and how the devastating CQB takes place. When much of the on-board firepower is limited in range (and the boards are bigger), then single-turn-annihilation becomes far less of a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mezmorki wrote:
I was reading the 2nd edition rulebook the other day and was reminded of the rules for "hiding" units. Units in cover relative to enemy LoS could declare they were hiding on their turn, and would be totally out-of-sight unless the enemy got within detection range (which was their initiative value I think). Units stayed hidden until they moved or shot. Could combine this with overwatch to setup ambushes. You could also fire blast weapons and template weapons towards hidden units, and of course those had a chance to hit/wound. Pretty epic really.
If I were to rework 40K, there is A LOT I would take from 2nd edition.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 17:05:24


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding your army is the only thing that prevents damage in an IGOUGO system.


Or you can have cover provide a significant defensive benefit, not just a binary can't-be-targeted/instant-death. Were you around when being in ruins gave you a 4+ invuln? That made a huge impact to durability.

Or you can have soft damage effects like morale/suppression rather than just pulling models off the board.

Or you can have range limitations that ensure armies must close the distance to perform effective fire.

Or you can have reaction mechanics (even within an IGOUGO structure) that permit units in defensive positions to interrupt attackers and damage/disrupt them to preemptively impair their ability to inflict damage.

Or you can have equipment that mitigates damage, like smoke to obscure LOS.

Or you can have go-to-ground mechanics where units sacrifice actions later for resilience now.

Daed, serious question- what non-GW wargames have you played? The idea that blocking LOS is the only way to prevent damage seems like the kind of weird notion that someone who's only ever played 40K (and modern 40K at that) might come up with. Tons and tons of IGOUGO wargames don't have this problem, and the idea that you have to choose between armies getting irrecoverably destroyed on turn 1 or everything hitting like a wet noodle is really, really weird.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 17:23:45


Post by: JNAProductions


I've been mulling over a Suppression mechanic, and posted a thread on it.

I cannot claim credit for the ideas entirely-they've certainly been suggested before, and I've seen them suggested before. But it's still worth a gander, methinks.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 17:31:27


Post by: Racerguy180


I totally agree that a ton of 2nd ed mechanics could be integrated into the "modern" game.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 17:48:00


Post by: Insectum7


Racerguy180 wrote:
I totally agree that a ton of 2nd ed mechanics could be integrated into the "modern" game.
There's definitely some kind of optimal combination of the past editions that's possible to do. Prohammer looked pretty decent (though I haven't spent enough time looking at it to fully assess it), but there are certain things about 2nd that were very nice. Hidden and Overwatch, use of grenades, mechanics around troops firing from vehicles. 2nd had a number of interesting additional tactical options that allowed for more creativity when tackling problems.

Edit: Mind you, there are MANY things I would not lift from 2nd, lol. Such as individual model facing, layered force fields and expanding Plasma Grenades


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 18:04:58


Post by: Mezmorki


 catbarf wrote:
Or you can have cover provide a significant defensive benefit, not just a binary can't-be-targeted/instant-death. Were you around when being in ruins gave you a 4+ invuln? That made a huge impact to durability.


Yeup. I liked this best from 3rd + 4th edition (and in ProHammer). Hard cover is a 4+ save, Light cover is a 5+. If you actually have terrain features that are "bunkers" and hardened terrain, it's a 3+ save.

 catbarf wrote:
Or you can have soft damage effects like morale/suppression rather than just pulling models off the board.


Yeup. All editions prior to 8th did this for failed morale / pinning tests. Being forced to fall back often let you move towards cover/terrain or get out of LoS as well (or even just out of range).

 catbarf wrote:
Or you can have range limitations that ensure armies must close the distance to perform effective fire.


Yeup. Ranges were generally shorter in older editions. Far less 18" + ranged weapons. Also - charging was locked to 6" for the most part in 5th edition and earlier. Random charge rolls mean you potential threat range is increased, and the average is at least 7" - so you have longer charges generally.

 catbarf wrote:
Or you can have reaction mechanics (even within an IGOUGO structure) that permit units in defensive positions to interrupt attackers and damage/disrupt them to preemptively impair their ability to inflict damage.


Yeup. ProHammer added in a true overwatch mechanism based more around 2nd edition. We ALSO have reaction mechanics for being shot or charged. Units can take "reactive fire" once per turn when shot or charged. There are some restrictions on how strong this is, and it means your shooting NEXT turn is limited to snap fire only. Between overwatch and reactive fire there isn't that much need to rethink IGOUGO.

 catbarf wrote:
Or you can have equipment that mitigates damage, like smoke to obscure LOS.


Yeup! Probably would be good to add more of this into the ruleset.

 catbarf wrote:
Or you can have go-to-ground mechanics where units sacrifice actions later for resilience now.


Yeup! This existed starting in 5th edition. Removed in 8th. +1 cover save but only shot with snap fire on their next turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
I totally agree that a ton of 2nd ed mechanics could be integrated into the "modern" game.
There's definitely some kind of optimal combination of the past editions that's possible to do. Prohammer looked pretty decent (though I haven't spent enough time looking at it to fully assess it), but there are certain things about 2nd that were very nice. Hidden and Overwatch, use of grenades, mechanics around troops firing from vehicles. 2nd had a number of interesting additional tactical options that allowed for more creativity when tackling problems.

Edit: Mind you, there are MANY things I would not lift from 2nd, lol. Such as individual model facing, layered force fields and expanding Plasma Grenades


ProHammer is exactly an attempt to do this - as well as to address some other long-standing issues in the game that no editions have really addressed well.

This was an early endeavor to map out differences between editions and was the basis for the first versions of ProHammer:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1al0RietrhVVuo10iuaIZCo1MjVjyEp9SviFTKkVCnNo/edit?usp=sharing

ProHammer does have 2nd edition style Overwatch.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 18:10:18


Post by: catbarf


 JNAProductions wrote:
I've been mulling over a Suppression mechanic, and posted a thread on it.

I cannot claim credit for the ideas entirely-they've certainly been suggested before, and I've seen them suggested before. But it's still worth a gander, methinks.


I like the idea, but I think the issues with lethality in the current iteration of 40K are more fundamental than the simple lack of suppression.

A long time ago I played Squad Leader with my dad, and that game hammered home three lessons:
1. Potshots at 500m aren't effective at killing or eliminating units, but can temporarily suppress them to pin them in place.
2. Firefights at point-blank are extremely lethal and can result in both sides quickly becoming combat-ineffective, but a suppressed unit can be eliminated at much lower risk.
3. Cover is life, and units that would be eliminated in the open by a volley of fire may be unfazed in cover.

So, logically, the resulting gameplay is then all about using fire to pin the enemy in place (#1) so that you can concentrate your forces to eliminate the enemy up close (#2) and simultaneously maximize your use of cover while minimizing your opponent's (#3). And go figure, that's more or less how modern real-world warfare works.

The issue with tactics and lethality in 40K, as I see it, is that none of these three principles apply.

If you're within range, it doesn't matter if you're in your deployment zone or right in the enemy's face. It used to be that Rapid Fire was used to enforce some range limits on effective fire, and Heavy limited your ability to move and shoot, but those are much less relevant with 30" ranges, Bolter Discipline, smaller boards, and the penalties for Heavy getting neutered over time.

Because the only consequence of fire is killing, that means that tuning a unit to be weak at 24" means it can't kill the enemy at 6" either. There's no pinning while you maneuver to stack advantages and turn suppressive fire into effective fire. You just shoot the enemy and they die.

And cover being reduced to a +1 save modifier means not only is it less relevant than ever, it's also downright irrelevant for armies that logically really ought to care about getting some cover or concealment (eg Guard). So being in cover or caught in the open makes some difference, but not much.

These situational, stacking modifiers are where the tactics come from in a WW2 or modern game, and the lack thereof is a big part of why 40K is so heavily list-dependent. Your ability to kill the enemy comes entirely from your own list and the abilities you can stack; targeting is an exercise in maneuvering to get LOS on optimal targets, rather than maneuvering to achieve LOS, optimal range, cross-force coordination, flanking, or take advantage of covering or suppressing fire.

That's the requirement to have lethal combat without having games decided turn 1. Just make it so that you need to do something other than declare targets in order to deliver unit-wiping firepower- and while you're at it, maybe having forces regularly able to deposit all of their firepower right in the enemy's face before they have any opportunity to act is bad design.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 18:24:48


Post by: Insectum7


 Mezmorki wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
I totally agree that a ton of 2nd ed mechanics could be integrated into the "modern" game.
There's definitely some kind of optimal combination of the past editions that's possible to do. Prohammer looked pretty decent (though I haven't spent enough time looking at it to fully assess it), but there are certain things about 2nd that were very nice. Hidden and Overwatch, use of grenades, mechanics around troops firing from vehicles. 2nd had a number of interesting additional tactical options that allowed for more creativity when tackling problems.

Edit: Mind you, there are MANY things I would not lift from 2nd, lol. Such as individual model facing, layered force fields and expanding Plasma Grenades


ProHammer is exactly an attempt to do this - as well as to address some other long-standing issues in the game that no editions have really addressed well.

This was an early endeavor to map out differences between editions and was the basis for the first versions of ProHammer:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1al0RietrhVVuo10iuaIZCo1MjVjyEp9SviFTKkVCnNo/edit?usp=sharing

ProHammer does have 2nd edition style Overwatch.

Yeah I remember seeing the 2nd Ed Overwatch in there, although I didn't remember the details about it (so it might wind up manifesting differently) Sorry I haven't played it yet. I do want to try it out, GW irritates me atm.

Oh and big +1 to equipment that block LOS. I used Blind Grenades A LOT in 2nd ed to cover movement and retain the initiative for firing opportunity. In 3rd, there was a WD article that gave Blind Grenades back to Assault Marines, but it only gave a 5+ cover save to the unit, which I felt was inadequate. Not that laying down a bunch of blast markers to block LOS is the right solution necessarily, but something that could effect not just the unit that put smoke down would be nice. (although tricky to figure out how to do mechanically)

On a related note, finding out that Smoke Launchers for vehicles had been turned into a Stratagem was one of the breaking points for me on 9th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
Spoiler:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I've been mulling over a Suppression mechanic, and posted a thread on it.

I cannot claim credit for the ideas entirely-they've certainly been suggested before, and I've seen them suggested before. But it's still worth a gander, methinks.


I like the idea, but I think the issues with lethality in the current iteration of 40K are more fundamental than the simple lack of suppression.

A long time ago I played Squad Leader with my dad, and that game hammered home three lessons:
1. Potshots at 500m aren't effective at killing or eliminating units, but can temporarily suppress them to pin them in place.
2. Firefights at point-blank are extremely lethal and can result in both sides quickly becoming combat-ineffective, but a suppressed unit can be eliminated at much lower risk.
3. Cover is life, and units that would be eliminated in the open by a volley of fire may be unfazed in cover.

So, logically, the resulting gameplay is then all about using fire to pin the enemy in place (#1) so that you can concentrate your forces to eliminate the enemy up close (#2) and simultaneously maximize your use of cover while minimizing your opponent's (#3). And go figure, that's more or less how modern real-world warfare works.

The issue with tactics and lethality in 40K, as I see it, is that none of these three principles apply.

If you're within range, it doesn't matter if you're in your deployment zone or right in the enemy's face. It used to be that Rapid Fire was used to enforce some range limits on effective fire, and Heavy limited your ability to move and shoot, but those are much less relevant with 30" ranges, Bolter Discipline, smaller boards, and the penalties for Heavy getting neutered over time.

Because the only consequence of fire is killing, that means that tuning a unit to be weak at 24" means it can't kill the enemy at 6" either. There's no pinning while you maneuver to stack advantages and turn suppressive fire into effective fire. You just shoot the enemy and they die.

And cover being reduced to a +1 save modifier means not only is it less relevant than ever, it's also downright irrelevant for armies that logically really ought to care about getting some cover or concealment (eg Guard). So being in cover or caught in the open makes some difference, but not much.

These situational, stacking modifiers are where the tactics come from in a WW2 or modern game, and the lack thereof is a big part of why 40K is so heavily list-dependent. Your ability to kill the enemy comes entirely from your own list and the abilities you can stack; targeting is an exercise in maneuvering to get LOS on optimal targets, rather than maneuvering to achieve LOS, optimal range, cross-force coordination, flanking, or take advantage of covering or suppressing fire.

That's the requirement to have lethal combat without having games decided turn 1. Just make it so that you need to do something other than declare targets in order to deliver unit-wiping firepower- and while you're at it, maybe having forces regularly able to deposit all of their firepower right in the enemy's face before they have any opportunity to act is bad design.
Exhalted.

I've been thinking a lot about the cover mechanics of 2nd ed recently, which were all modifiers to hit iirc. -1 for light cover, and -2 for heavy cover. That doesn't address everything said above (hardly any, really) but the treatment of cover as obscuring shots rather than increasing armor save helps with it's effectiveness. A BS 4 model firing at a model in Heavy Cover is suddenly only hitting on 6s. and that obscuring behavior has a magnified effect over the +1 to armor save when were talking about Heavy Weapons. Cover doesn't help much vs a Lascannon if we're talking armor increase, but the Lascannon effectiveness is greatly reduced if it's only hitting on 6s now.

Now, the flipside to the argument is that it was refreshing in 3rd when my Marines didn't feel like they had to hug cover against small arms. Soooo. . . I dunno. (although some of that had to do with weapons-range reductions too.)


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 19:01:47


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding your army is the only thing that prevents damage in an IGOUGO system.


Or you can have cover provide a significant defensive benefit, not just a binary can't-be-targeted/instant-death. Were you around when being in ruins gave you a 4+ invuln? That made a huge impact to durability.

Or you can have soft damage effects like morale/suppression rather than just pulling models off the board.

Or you can have range limitations that ensure armies must close the distance to perform effective fire.

Or you can have reaction mechanics (even within an IGOUGO structure) that permit units in defensive positions to interrupt attackers and damage/disrupt them to preemptively impair their ability to inflict damage.

Or you can have equipment that mitigates damage, like smoke to obscure LOS.

Or you can have go-to-ground mechanics where units sacrifice actions later for resilience now.

Daed, serious question- what non-GW wargames have you played? The idea that blocking LOS is the only way to prevent damage seems like the kind of weird notion that someone who's only ever played 40K (and modern 40K at that) might come up with. Tons and tons of IGOUGO wargames don't have this problem, and the idea that you have to choose between armies getting irrecoverably destroyed on turn 1 or everything hitting like a wet noodle is really, really weird.


Axies and Allies minis. Imperial Assault. Dabbled in Warmachine...meh. Bolt Action on rare occasions. Fantasy was my jam, really.

Form what I remember of older editions is that we house rules that umm...what was it called...whatever mechanic it was that it was nighttime round 1 ( and randomly still nighttime by turn ) and you could buy searchlights for your vehicles.

Same concept of "hiding". Some of what you mentioned have the same effect with a different window dressing.


Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  @ 2021/09/30 19:19:14


Post by: Insectum7


^Dawn Attack or something.

I remember using Reserves a lot in order to mitigate first turn hazards too.

Deploy many units out of LOS, use screening to protect my own firebase, use Reserves to keep models off the table and then react to opponent moves as the game progressed. Things really heated up in turns 2-3-4 ish, while turn one was sort of exploratory fire and maneuvers. Felt good.