Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all,

I thought I'd start a topic to try and get a discussion going.

From what i've read on forums and have seen of games in stores over the years, the tactics side of the game has actually gone beyond this and has now entered the realm of everyone trying to simply outdo each other for armies that win every game, by even going so far as to working out statistics for certain weapons probability of killing something. 

I personally think this has led to the game becoming far less fun than it used to be, with alot of people now only using the army lists that 'do well'. This in my opinion is making the game very narrow in its variety with very few folk seeming to use models or units simply because they like them but using units and configurations of equipment to make their army win all the time.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Craig

That's because 40k's system for most everything is flawed and the army lists are terribly setup with many units being much better than others.

It also has a lot to do with the idea that many good army lists will win almost regardless of the "tactics" your opponent employs unless your army list has the tools to take it down.

It also has to do with the fact that actual tactics in 40k are very reactionary.

You need to know what the terrain layout and the oponents setup are to determin tactics for that time.
Becauase of the speed that everyone moves at generic tactics dont really work.

Agree 100%. Let us pray that they add some people to the design team that understand the simple math and tactics so they can stop putting out these cookie cutter armies.

Death_Master, the problem isn't that everyone is cutting the game to bits with their spreadsheets and calculations. This is natural in any game based on number values and probabilities, and a robust system will survive it. The real problem is that it doesn't take all that much effort to see that some options are wonderful and others are worthless, which leads to the lack of variety you're (rightly) complaining about. I doubt it took any mathhammer at all for SM players to realise that 6-man las/plas is the way to go.

I dont think it makes a huge amount of difference, the board is too small and the game too short. Bascially you have to pack the maximum amount of killpower in as possible to reliably win games in 6 turns. its a set piece for most armies, you put your models down and they start shooting like hell or charging forward.

If the table was bigger with room to manoeuvre and enough time to set up, then tactics would make a big difference. Essentially a game of 40K is what happens after all of that, it is a fire fight when forces have come into contact after any manoeuvres.

Plus, the entire concept is skewed. Two exactly equal forces (supposedly) meet and engage. That is a very odd set up. In reality, you would seek to overwhelm your opponant, not meet him on equal terms.

And yes, the army lists are pretty skewed in favor of certain units. So if you are looking for a game of master tactics and brain power, play chess or go. A game like 40K is more than half decided before the models are ever placed on the table.

Why do you think the roll for first turn is The Most Important Roll? I used to complain ad nauseum when I didn't get first turn in 40k, but playing Fantasy more and winning 40k games while going second has taught me that it's not 100% the only roll that matters. There are still people who walk away from the game if they don't get first ...

But I do think that winning at 40k is about 50% list building, 30% luck and 20% not screwing up in game. Some builds - stealer heavy nids, zilla nids, maybe mech eldar but I haven't fought them yet - my chaos cannot stand up to. I flatout lack the firepower, and I know it and designed it to have less lascannons and plasma. That was my choice, and it puts my army at a disadvantage as far as straight up winning goes. I think some variety makes for more entertaining games, and a greater level of character and narrative, but also a weaker list in many cases. But I like to think my weaker chaos army is more fun to play against, and victories feel better too, than some SAFH MEQ list or a variety of unbeatable builds.

Guess it's sorta what level do you want to play 40k at. None of my army builds are Tier 1 or 2, and I like it that way. Down here in the lower levels things are less competitive and more about the game being fun. Winning is still the point, but just not as cut-throat

- Salvage

EDIT: Ever play a game long-wise down the table?  I've played a few 3000 pointers with 2 4x6 put next to each other long-wise, for an 8x6 table.  With 18" deployment zones, you're still 36" away from each other instead of 24".  Infiltrators, deep strikers and RANGE become very very important instead of just speeding the game up a bit.

It's not the players, it's the game.
Warhammer Fantasy suffers from very little of the problems of 40K, because the rules allow for interesting tactical situations. For example, a unit of Goblin archers on a hill, in 4 ranks with it's flanks protected is a much more daunting prospect in close combat than the same unit in a 20 long line front of said hill. In 40K, that combat is a no brainer- no combat mods, number of wounds or glancing/penetrating hits are all that matter, etc. add in the standard move rates and ridiculous AP system, and you're on to a turd of a game.

There are tactics to be employed in the game. Where to move, when to move there, what to shoot at and with which weapons to shoot it, where to assault, when to get out of your transports, when to move towards the enemy, when to move away from the enemy (a move very few people use surprisingly), and how to coordinate your army are all important tactical decisions you have to make.

Now there are a lot of non-tactical decisions to be made as well, particularly when you build your army. I think that these get a lot more attention around message boards because they are a lot easier to talk about. It's difficult to discuss the virtues of moving backwards or how good it is to hug terrain on a message board. It's easy to talk about how many MEQ's a scatter laser can kill compared to a star cannon per turn. Then you have the fact that some units in army lists are clearly inferior to other units. So it may not be so much that the flavor is really being boiled out of the game so much as people are talking about it a lot.

Part of the problem is that heavy/special weapons are so much more powerful than the basic infantry weapons.  A hit from a Plasma Gun is five times more likely to kill a Marine than a hit from a Bolter.  You can't just ignore that and pick a bit of everything.  The guys with Bolters are just meat shields to keep the guys with special/heavy weapons alive.  Army lists are tailored to maximize those effective weapons, and there's a huge payoff for doing so.   If you just bring a bit of everything (or worse, an army that fits the fluff) your at a huge disadvantage.

In Warhammer Fantasy the grunts can contribute combat resolution, control the enemies movement phase and run down fleeing enemies.  In 40k they just stand there and get killed so the invisible Plasma Guns/Lascannons/Powerfists etc can stay on the board.  And since tactics in 40k don't really stretch beyond "point more heavy weapons at the enemy than he does at you" there's not much you can do to compensate for having a less tweaked list than your opponent.

Tactics have never truly been a part of this game. (for example there is no actual benefit to creating crossfires or flanking a squad) It is more correct to call it 'Using the rules to the best effect'. Unless you can think of real world examples of people sitting in front of opposing transports hatches to prevent the troops inside from disembarking, or squads of infantry charging in a manner as to only engage one man.

Really whats happening is that people are finally realizing the overall effectiveness of each weapon/unit. So list design all of a sudden seems to be more important than before. This is largely because of the proliferation of the internet, which has allowed those who understand the true power differences between say a grenade launcher and a plasma gun to explain it to those who don't.

And when you get down to it, this site has A LOT of tournament players, so its to be expected that unit/weapon/list effectiveness is highly prized here.  There are still many sites that are more interested in casual play.  (although once you learn about what is an is not effective, its almost impossible to go back)

Try this.
Build up the most powerfull army you can think of.
Borrow an army of equal pts from a twelve year old kid and let him borrow your beefy army.

If you can beat that kid then there are tactics involved in the game. If not then they arnt there.

Everything from where you deploy your devestator squad (behind the woods or in it?) all the way to the best way to charge the opposing squad are tactics.

Just page up to the lash of torment post for alist of tactial options that weapon opens up for you.

Everyone complains about the fact that 40k weapons dont have ap values like in fantasy. Just think what would happen to the game if evey anti tank weapon was ap2 (what would happen if they all had the fantasy rule).

If army lists were all that mattered then you could compare lists at the begining of the game and know who would win. You cant. It doesnt work that way.

This is a game, not real life. That means that real life tactics dont directly compare. The example about blocking transport access points to prevent disembarcation is a perfect example of an in game tactic.

And for all of you who think fantasy has more tactics than 40k just look at the fantasy posts out there. Most of them are about army lists as well.

This is because it is easy to discuss army lists. You can see all of the options out there. Everything is determined on the roll of a six sided dice. This makes the math simplisticly easy to do. Add to this that most tactics are frowned on and laughed at when people first try to introduce them and most people will only discuss army lists and the value of adding another cannon to said list.

My question to you is this:
What would you do to make the game more tactical? 
How would it acomplish your goal?

Cypher, you obviously don't understand the "AP" system in fantasy if you think it has an equivelent of "AP 2". It's save modifiers, that's all. For each point of strength above 3, you take 1 from the save. In 2nd Ed, some saves were taken on 2 or even 3 D6 to account for high save mods. It also introduces a gradient of power which is easier to scale across armies. For example, a bolter is massively effective against orks, but crap vs. marines. So those bolter guys are your real heros vs. Orks.
But fixing save mods would just help the game make sense, and make balancing easier. To introduce tactical thought, you would need to think about suppressive fire (In real life, most soldiers refuse to move while under fire, and will sit there and return fire until they get covering fire. This could easily be represented. It would make the game more complicated, but would also help create tactical thought)
Combat resolution and morale are grossly oversimplified in the current edition- number of wounds as a barometer of success says nothing about position, relative success (Eg. if 3 space marines are killed for the loss of 4 gretchin, and the space marines are out numbered now almost 15 to 1, how are the gretchin losing, exactly?)
Better combat resolution would help in making people consider movement and charges more carefully. As it stands, you chuck your powerful assualt unit at the correct target and accept that it will mulch it.
Finally, space marines need to be less prevalent in the metagame, otherwise lists will be tailored for them. Though that's a strategy issue, not a tactical issue.

Here's a question, given two identical White Dwarf style-everything is useful lists, what are the main factors determining who will win the battle between the two?

- Is it who wins first turn roll?
- Will it just come down to who has the hotter dice?
- Knowledge of and the ability to take advantage of obscure rules?
- What skills actually define who is the 'better' player?  Being able to eyeball range?
- Knowledge of the units in the list and knowing their proper/best role?

What factors will determine the winner given two identical lists?

Identical lists? It comes down to luck of the dice and ability to judge relative toughness of units and ranges.
Pretty much what you've said there- all of that will play a part.

"Combat resolution and morale are grossly oversimplified in the current edition- number of wounds as a barometer of success says nothing about position, relative success (Eg. if 3 space marines are killed for the loss of 4 gretchin, and the space marines are out numbered now almost 15 to 1, how are the gretchin losing, exactly?)"

No offense, but this particular example is pathetic for your arguement.  I am not going to argue the tactical differences between the two games as I do not play fantasy, but an 8 foot tall genetically enhanced uber marine in power armor armed with a chainsword and automatic weapons is ABSOLUTLEY going to be winning versus 15 two foot tall ork children with bone knives.  Are you kidding me?  At least use a more suportive example for your arguement. 

If you are making real-life comparisons, I am no super human, but I am confident that I would win against 15 ten year olds in a fight.   In my prime, I beat the hell out of 5 men in a bar by myself.  Granted, the other two ran when I knocked out the first three, but I guess they failed their morale check!

Posted By Da Boss on 08/08/2007 9:52 AM
Identical lists? It comes down to luck of the dice and ability to judge relative toughness of units and ranges.
Pretty much what you've said there- all of that will play a part.

Moreso I'd say deployment, mission, and the ability to play 6+ turns with that mission in mind from the start.

Are you kidding me, dornsfist? I really can't find a thing in your whole post that has any bearing on Da Boss's point.

It's simple.  Being outnumbered doesn't automatically mean you are losing.  How do you not see that clearly expressed point?  Are you kidding ME?

So if you and four of your mates are set upon by a mob of thirty school children, and you guys have knocked out four of them, but three of your own are out as well, your mates are winning the fight? If you say so.

For starters I do understand the fantasy system. What it ammounts to is that str7 or above removes a 3+ save. So every weapon that can threaten tanks kills marines.

And when you have to roll 50+ saves you dont want to roll them on 2D6. It takes to long. Shooting termies in 2nd edition with many guns could take 30 min.




You still havent stated how you would represent this. Perhaps a pinning test? Or perhaps the covering fire you mention is the shots the squad or the other squads you have on the table take thereby removing the rule entirely.





Again, you didnt say what happen just some general ideas of this perfect rule that would solve everything. And why shouldnt the more powerful assult unit win?

Your gretchin example shows just how finiky gretchen should be. They should run at the first sign of trouble. Sounds good to me, they should run.

I've thought a lot about the whole d6 system, and how to rectify it. The d6 system suffers from a couple of things. First, it has a tiny range; having only six possible numbers to roll means that the stats the rolls apply to will vary by only about six numbers. Examples: toughness, with very few exceptions, ranges from 3 to 8 (6 numbers). Ballistic skill ranges from 2 to 5 (only 4 numbers). Vehicle armour ranges from 10 to 14 (5 numbers). Strength typically ranges from 3 to 9 with a few 10s for good measure (7-8 numbers). A d6 system really limits how different your models can be.

Second, the probability curve for a d6 is flat. While not wrong, it certainly makes the game less interesting. Rolling a d6 has no sweet spot (like the 7 on a 2d6), so there's less sense of assurance when you're rolling for it, and less sense that you're gambling when you roll above it. The worst chance you'll ever to make a roll in the d6 system is still 17%. 

A 2d6 system solves both issues, but as mentioned before it simply takes too long. Either you have to have a lot of exclusively mated die pairs, or attacks have to be rolled one at a time. Slugga boys already take long enough just in the movement phase, thank you.

My proposal (ahem ahem) is a d12 system, except that the dice have a second set of numbers from 1 to 7. The faces would read:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 3
5. 4
6. 4
7. 4
8. 4
9. 5
10. 5
11. 6
12. 7

It reduces the granualrity somewhat by adding on more number (7 number instead of 6), and there is a definite probability curve. Furthermore, a d7 system has a midpoint (4) which doesn't exist in any single die system (except d3) without custom numbering. Finally, GW will love it because it means that everybody requires a new set of custom dice.

Now that I look at that again, it would be better to change that to 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8. That way, the jump from 4+ to 3+ wouldn't be 33% odds.

I'm not the smartest gamer in the world, but at least I know 4 kills beats 3 kills.  Geesh, tegeus.  No wonder you couldn't wrap your brain around that simple concept.

BTW~ How many "wounds" do you think a space marine is worth in comparison to a gretchin?  I'm not saying DaBoss is off-base in questioning the system, just that his particular example is worthless to prove his point.  It simply does not.  I would say that 2 space marines against 15 gretchin is in favor of the space marines according to the charts for weapon skill vs. weapon skill, strength versus toughness, comparative armor saves, and leadership scores.  Not to mention the "fluff" background of the two units used in the example.  But like I said, I am not the math hammer of the gaming world!

In an actual game of 40k, I would put my money on 15 gretchin killing 2 marines.  That isn't theoryhammer, that's what I've seen those vicious little buggers do over and over if given the opportunity.

I'm actually working on an alternate ruleset that uses 40K models and fluff, but (I hope) is much better to play. I chose a d10 for this system both for the reasons you describe, and because humans think in base 10.



This is absolutely true. Multiple dice give a bell curve effect, which I think models real life much more nicely. Sometimes people screw up very badly, sometimes they do something amazing, but most results are very average. Multiple dice allow you do have exceptional results on the edge conditions, but without needing huge numbers.

The downside (as you said) is that it's just no practical for large scale rolling.

On the other hand, this also points out the fact that while single models are very granular in their result set, units are much less so. Since units roll large pools of dice, the bell curve will effect the reults of their shooting, and I think this mitigates things pretty well.

Your idea of custom dice is a good one, since it removes the issue of needing to roll 2+ dice per action, but it requires custom made dice, which makes it impractical. I think the overall effect of what you propose is accomplished by thinking more in terms of models rather than units, and building in a certain amount of bell curve effect in the rules.

For example, say that a roll of 6 (or 10) is a "critical threat." Pick those up and roll them again. A 4+ is an actual critical. Or whatever the concept for "big success" is. Same goes in reverse.

dorsnfist:

Still not answering my question. Real world: you and four buddies get jumped by thirty schoolchildren. The schoolchildren knock out four of your buddies; you guys knock out five schoolchildren. You'd say you're winning?

These arguements are all very interesting, but you're losing sight of the fact that 40k - while never a good system - was at one point had better rulesets than the current edition.  Realism and tactics have been intentionally streamlined from the game to quicken the game, for the purpose of creating larger battles in the same amount of time.  Larger battles = more models sold for GW. 

Do you honestly think they didn't believe people were capable of subtracting the save modifiers back in 2e?  Of course not.  But it reduces dice rolling, which reduces game time.  Same thing with casualty removal.  Now that casualties are removed on a squad basis rather than an individual basis, positioning is less important, which makes the movement phase take less time, which again makes games go faster and allows players to play larger games in the same amount of time.

Dumbing down of list creation, the creation of USRs, etc.,  also accomplishes this, by reducing the number of times the average player will have to look something up.

The point is, I (and probably you as well) can think up an answer to any tactial or realism deficiency with a minimum of additional complexity, but most are going to add to play time.  This decreases GW profits, because it would shrink army sizes, and thus will not happen.

Are you talking about 2nd edition where overwatch meant that squads never advanced out of fear or where you had cards for wargear? 2nd edition where the average game was 4-6 hours?

That was not a better rules set. It was far to convoluted and so full of loop holes and errors that it was incredable games could be played at all.

A d6 is used because it is very common and everyone has them. A d10 is accessable to everyone but not in the same quantities as a d6 (ever seen a brick of d10 dice?). And I really really dont want to buy exclusive GW dice that cant be bought from anyone else.

Still waiting on a detailed rule that would make the game more tactical.

Posted By cypher on 08/09/2007 7:53 AM

A d6 is used because it is very common and everyone has them. A d10 is accessable to everyone but not in the same quantities as a d6 (ever seen a brick of d10 dice?). 

Yes?

White Wolf, the second largest RPG company in the world, uses exclusively d10's. So does L5R, Unisystem, and a lot of the other big names.

If you can't readily find d10's, then you're not looking.

Here for example: http://dicepool.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=124_160&products_id=946&osCsid=27c8ad6470456b5d19a2f7a606ac9139