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.

PanzerLeader wrote:
MTG requires better risk management because of the increased friction (in this case, lack of information), but that doesn't disprove my original point. Once someone creates an original combo and plays it at a major event, it will hit the internet and become discussed ad nauseum. Players will begin constructing similiar decks and anticipating the possible combos in it. It's not brilliant and innovative once it becomes emulated.

I'm not talking about big things like a brilliant new combo to build a deck around, I'm talking about the small things like "do I attack with this creature or not". MTG, especially in limited formats, is full of complex and interesting decisions that make 40k's look like a joke, and those decisions still exist and are interesting even if someone has made them before.

 Lews Therin wrote:
Again Peregrine you are just full of things that i can't disagree more about. Ratling while fluffy i have found great, clearly you don't roll 6's consistantly but you hav 2 chances to completely wreck face with sniper weapons, both in the "to hit" phase and the "to wound" phase. but i don't need to go into details of why i like them or why i enjoy using them in my army.

You can like them, but the math disagrees with you. Which goes back to the original point: there's no reason to waste time discussing tactics for using ratlings when people still don't understand list-building concepts like doing the math on ratlings and realizing that they don't belong in your list at all.

"Why be sorry? I don't play 40k because of the deep strategy, so it costs me nothing to admit that it's a very shallow game once you get past list construction." - This comment right here is why i feel sorry my feathered friend. This is a dismal view of any game. And now i can understand the context of your comments and views.

How is it dismal? Do you think that, for example, D&D players are all miserable because their game is about roleplaying instead of brilliant tactical decisions?

 Jancoran wrote:
Like for example im discusing Creed on another thread. Someone made the point that much of his bubble is lost off theback board edge, and I thought to myself: "So...don't put him there when it matters?" Lol.

Oh good, let's bring the argument here too.

Creed goes on the back edge because that's where you put fragile support units that you want to have alive for more than a turn or two. And putting him closer to the enemy just means that more of your bubble is wasted out beyond the front of your army instead of out the back.

Some say Stingwings are terrible because they get killed too easily in the open. So i think to myself "so...use them on an obscured flank? Wait til theres wreckage and bounce them behind it on DS?"

Because that's less efficient than just bringing fire warriors/crisis suits/etc.

A lot of people really miss out on playing opportunities and fun units and for what?

Sorry, but we're talking about how to win, not how to have fun. Fun is subjective and different for each person, if you think a unit is fun just put it in your list, there's no point in discussing it with anyone else.

It's not that 40k requires NO tactical thinking. It's just that is doesn't require a LOT of tactical thinking. At the highest levels of play everyone know what units do what and how well. You won't be able to rely on taking kooky or rarely used units to surprise people. They already know what it does. Two equally skilled players will only be able to decide who wins a game of 40k by how optimized their lists are and how lucky they are.

Disagree completely. I will say that the majority of people who play 40k either play for fun and don't care or simply aren't good. This holds true at local events (and even GTs). There are people who just show up with lists that you know won't win. The reason people bring these lists is usually a combination of not understanding the game/tactics, wanting to bring what they find fun/cool, or just not owning what they want to bring.

There are also lots of "good" players that understand the game well enough, yet who don't make top tables or win events. The difference I've found between these players and the ones that consistently win are the little things. These little things may seem "gamey", but they are tactical and important. Things like end game strategy, deployment, target priority, and the whole movement phase in general are areas where the great players separate from the good players.

To deny that there is a level of strategy that most players will never reach is laughable. It's also why players stagnate. Thinking that there isn't more for you to learn is arrogant at best.

I'm not arguing that 40k is the cleanest or most competitive game ever conceived. However, I do find it funny that we have know-it-alls who claim the game is entirely list building based, but that never win anything. That type of thinking mirrors a certain player with a blue blog. Funny that he never wins either..

 labmouse42 wrote:
Words Words Words

Aside from the insults, intended or not, all the tactics that you have outlined are part of the extremely low skill ceiling of 40k. Don't show rear armor on a vehicle? Isn't that one of the first tactics you learn if you ever have vehicles? Blocking assaults with rhinos? Sounds like a fancy form of mobile bubble wrapping which is also something you learn within the first ten games you play. GUO and using the cover rules...I feel like this is another thing that's almost a no brainer. Shroud plus intervening unit equals profit. And finally placing a hard to handle unit on an objective is well within the grasp of even the newest of scrubs.

Your skill can only evolve so far. Eventually you hit the ceiling (and it ain't that high) and you find yourself using the same thing that proved effective before. Over and over. Eventually everyone knows and is doing it. Then how can you improve? Why, by list building of course!

Seems that only the people who claim that 40k is entirely strategy with no list building are the ones throwing the insults around.

Once again, everyone seems to have missed the point. 40k isn't a game that is entirely lacking in tactical thinking, it just doesn't require a whole hell of a lot. After you master the basic mechanics the most effective way to improve your game is to improve your list. Let's put it in bold so people won't forget: It's not that 40k doesn't require smart tactics, it's just less important in the grand scheme of things than having a solid list to build your foundations on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JGrand wrote:
Many words

Once again. It's not that the game is entirely based on list building. You just put yourself at a disadvantage by not optimizing your list to maximize your odds of success.

All the tactics you've talked about simply improve your odds of doing something useful. I don't claim to be the final say on any and all things tactical in 40k. I'm saying that no one in this thread has stated any sort of maneuver that has been completely knew or revolutionary to me. I'm not even close to the best or most experienced player and yet all these things are within my grasp of the game. I've played around 20 games of 5th edition and around 30 games of 6th. That's fairly green given the grand scheme of things. I'd claim that, while I don't know every single minuscule tactic and trick, I know the ones that are the most useful for improving the odds in a dice game.

And that's what it'll always be.

Luck > List Building > Tactics. In that order.

Lists are important, and good lists are a prerequisite to reliable success, but good play is more important. Again, there's a reason that you see certain players repeatedly at the top of GT standings, using a variety of codices, and often using books and unit combinations which are NOT raved about or listed at the top of folks' "most broken unit" opinion polls. It's skill. Pure and simple. It's not luck, and it's not just figuring out an objectively most powerful list and riding it until the next strong codex supplants it.

 Peregrine wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
MTG requires better risk management because of the increased friction (in this case, lack of information), but that doesn't disprove my original point. Once someone creates an original combo and plays it at a major event, it will hit the internet and become discussed ad nauseum. Players will begin constructing similiar decks and anticipating the possible combos in it. It's not brilliant and innovative once it becomes emulated.

I'm not talking about big things like a brilliant new combo to build a deck around, I'm talking about the small things like "do I attack with this creature or not". MTG, especially in limited formats, is full of complex and interesting decisions that make 40k's look like a joke, and those decisions still exist and are interesting even if someone has made them before.

This really sounds like you've plateaued as a player. Either you're naturally very talented at the game and will regularly win and place high at big events if you start attending them, or you're one of those guys who's better than the locals he normally faces, hasn't had to learn more advanced play, and has concluded that it doesn't exist.

I used to play tournament magic as well, and IME the games are more similar in this regard than different. In both games, with experience you will learn how to pilot a given deck or army so that many of your basic decisions are automatic, and it's when you're up against an unusual army/deck and/or unusually good opponent that you have to think more. In both cases it's also when luck goes against you that you have to improvise and adapt. Magic has the added variety of a vast array of cards to learn and combine. 40k has varied terrain to adapt to. Magic decks can be built to achieve different win conditions, but 40k has that in the form of missions.

 Mannahnin wrote:
This really sounds like you've plateaued as a player. Either you're naturally very talented at the game and will regularly win and place high at big events if you start attending them, or you're one of those guys who's better than the locals he normally faces, hasn't had to learn more advanced play, and has concluded that it doesn't exist.

I haven't concluded that it doesn't exist, you just keep over-simplifying my argument. My point is that:

1) "Advanced" play is usually incredibly situational and doesn't make good discussion. The correct decision depends on the exact details of a given scenario, and those details are unlikely to be the same for anyone else. Since the topic was about the emphasis of forum discussion rather than "does 40k have tactics" this is a very relevant factor.

2) For most people list building is more important than improving subtle details of tactics. Yes, I'm sure there are high-level tournament players who are the exception to the rule, but the average person asking "what should I arm my Sentinels with" is going to get way more benefit from fixing their list problems than anything else.

And TBH, if I had the time and money to invest in competitive 40k and cared enough to do it, I suspect that I would do well in tournaments. But it's not worth it for the fun, and it's certainly not worth it for the tiny prizes.

In both games, with experience you will learn how to pilot a given deck or army so that many of your basic decisions are automatic, and it's when you're up against an unusual army/deck and/or unusually good opponent that you have to think more.

Even if the decisions are being made on instinct once you've got a lot of experience the decisions are still more interesting. And a big part of that is because of the hidden information. With MTG you don't know your opponent's deck contents (you might be able to guess most of it as the game progresses, but you can't be 100% sure) and you don't know what's in their hand. So the "what if" decision trees get a lot more complex and you really have to out-think your opponent. With 40k, on the other hand, everything is out in the open. There are no surprises, so it's a lot easier to figure out what your opponent's obvious goal is and take appropriate actions to counter it.

And of course this applies even more to limited formats. Constructed might have more autopiloting and favor metagame analysis and deck construction, but limited formats are extremely demanding skill-wise. The decisions involved in a sealed deck tournament are far, far more interesting than anything 40k has to offer. Not only do you have huge amounts of hidden information you also have to improvise your entire strategy based on the cards you get, and you're much more likely to have to figure out a solution out of sub-optimal tools and use creative thinking to make it work.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
This really sounds like you've plateaued as a player. Either you're naturally very talented at the game and will regularly win and place high at big events if you start attending them, or you're one of those guys who's better than the locals he normally faces, hasn't had to learn more advanced play, and has concluded that it doesn't exist.

I haven't concluded that it doesn't exist, you just keep over-simplifying my argument. My point is that:

1) "Advanced" play is usually incredibly situational and doesn't make good discussion. The correct decision depends on the exact details of a given scenario, and those details are unlikely to be the same for anyone else. Since the topic was about the emphasis of forum discussion rather than "does 40k have tactics" this is a very relevant factor.

2) For most people list building is more important than improving subtle details of tactics. Yes, I'm sure there are high-level tournament players who are the exception to the rule, but the average person asking "what should I arm my Sentinels with" is going to get way more benefit from fixing their list problems than anything else.

I can agree with most of that. I will say that I don't think I'm over-simplifying your argument so much as you've oversimplified your argument a couple of times, and there do seem to be a couple of other posters who have agreed with the over-simplified and bad version of your argument.

I do believe there are general-use but non-obvious tricks and applications of positioning and maneuver which can be described and applied in a repeatable fashion. I maintain that the reason you don't see them discussed much is mostly because it's a lot of work to diagram and describe them. Ben Mohlie wrote some darn good articles on for BoLS, and Mike Brandt's posted a couple of excellent ones on his blog, showing several such advanced maneuvers..

 Peregrine wrote:
And TBH, if I had the time and money to invest in competitive 40k and cared enough to do it, I suspect that I would do well in tournaments. But it's not worth it for the fun, and it's certainly not worth it for the tiny prizes.

For my money, it''s significantly more enjoyable than competitive magic, and part of that is because of the smaller prizes. You encounter fewer dicks, IME, in part because no one's in it to try to win thousands of dollars. They're in it for bragging rights, to show off and check out sweet models, and for the love of the game. Not to say that there aren't great sports and creative deckbuilders in Magic. There certainly are. But IME the balance of player types in big 40k events is more slanted toward guys I enjoy playing a game and having a beer with.

 Peregrine wrote:

In both games, with experience you will learn how to pilot a given deck or army so that many of your basic decisions are automatic, and it's when you're up against an unusual army/deck and/or unusually good opponent that you have to think more.

Even if the decisions are being made on instinct once you've got a lot of experience the decisions are still more interesting. And a big part of that is because of the hidden information. With MTG you don't know your opponent's deck contents (you might be able to guess most of it as the game progresses, but you can't be 100% sure) and you don't know what's in their hand. So the "what if" decision trees get a lot more complex and you really have to out-think your opponent. With 40k, on the other hand, everything is out in the open. There are no surprises, so it's a lot easier to figure out what your opponent's obvious goal is and take appropriate actions to counter it.

And of course this applies even more to limited formats. Constructed might have more autopiloting and favor metagame analysis and deck construction, but limited formats are extremely demanding skill-wise. The decisions involved in a sealed deck tournament are far, far more interesting than anything 40k has to offer. Not only do you have huge amounts of hidden information you also have to improvise your entire strategy based on the cards you get, and you're much more likely to have to figure out a solution out of sub-optimal tools and use creative thinking to make it work.

"Interesting" is a question of taste and personal preference, of course. The flip side to the intrigue of hidden information is that sometimes you're literally just guessing. 40k does have some hidden information as well, of course (this is part of why Reserves and Deep Strike are valuable), but you're right that it's much less. I agree that limited formats (I love draft) are wonderfully fun and challenge both one's improvisational skills and one's knowledge of the set. But even there you do go in with certain strategies in mind and fundamental assumptions and preferences you're working with.

 Mannahnin wrote:
For my money, it''s significantly more enjoyable than competitive magic, and part of that is because of the smaller prizes. You encounter fewer dicks, IME, in part because no one's in it to try to win thousands of dollars. They're in it for bragging rights, to show off and check out sweet models, and for the love of the game. Not to say that there aren't great sports and creative deckbuilders in Magic. There certainly are. But IME the balance of player types in big 40k events is more slanted toward guys I enjoy having a beer with.

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say 40k is a shallow game: the fact that you CAN succeed by taking things fairly casually. Compare this to the level of effort required to get good enough at MTG to succeed in major tournaments. You're talking about countless hours of playtesting every detail of every matchup over and over again, never even considering throwing in a "fun" card that hasn't been thoroughly tested and optimized, etc. If you show up to a major event without that level of preparation you've got very little chance of winning because you simply won't understand the game as well as the players who did prepare.

On the other hand, that skill threshold just doesn't exist in 40k. You can show up with your "fun" army, have a few beers while you play, and still play well enough to win. The tactical questions are simple enough that you don't have to make 40k a full-time job to master them.


(I'll agree to disagree on the "which is more fun" thing. Personally I'd rather play MTG if I'm going to play a game competitively, but that's just subjective preference.)

You don't have the beers during the game if you want to win vs. a good player. You've gone back to claiming that there is no depth or advanced skill, which isn't true, and is probably something you write due to inexperience. The amount of effort, practice, and skill needed to win a big 40k event is comparable to that required to win a Magic event of around the same number of players.

A good Magic player can play Magic just as well after a couple of beers as a good 40k player can play 40k.

 Mannahnin wrote:
You don't have the beers during the game if you want to win vs. a good player. You've gone back to claiming that there is no depth or advanced skill, which isn't true, and is probably something you write due to inexperience. The amount of effort, practice, and skill needed to win a big 40k event is comparable to that required to win a Magic event of around the same number of players.

I didn't say there's no depth or advanced skill, I said there's less depth and advanced skill.

You said it's "a shallow game", which most folks will take to mean no depth, as shallow is the opposite of deep. Your second paragraph was kind of all over the place; I'm not sure whether you were talking about casual games, local tournaments, or big GTs in there. The context seems to suggest you mean such a casual approach can work even at big events, which I don't think is a claim you can defend.

As I've been out of the circuit for a while, perhaps you can get me up to speed on high-level Magic play as it currently stands. How many Magic players make it their full-time job? How many of them are forced to do so to master the game's tactical intricacies? What percentage of big events are won by guys for whom it is their full-time job?

 Mannahnin wrote:
You said it's "a shallow game", which most folks will take to mean no depth, as shallow is the opposite of deep.

Shallow is a relative term, not an absolute one. 40k is relatively shallow compared to other games, but that's not the same as having no depth at all.

Your second paragraph was kind of all over the place; I'm not sure whether you were talking about casual games, local tournaments, or big GTs in there. The context seems to suggest you mean such a casual approach can work even at big events, which I don't think is a claim you can defend.

But you just said that a casual approach can work, and that one of the reasons you prefer 40k tournaments to MTG tournaments is that you don't have the WAAC players doing everything they can to win lots of money. You can show off your cool models, play a game and have a beer with your friends, etc. That's describing something a lot like casual weekly FLGS tournaments in MTG, not high-level competitive play.

Just to give some context to this: when you're preparing for an event how many playtesting games do you play with your army against each archetype of opposing army you expect to encounter?

As I've been out of the circuit for a while, perhaps you can get me up to speed on high-level Magic play as it currently stands. How many Magic players make it their full-time job? How many of them are forced to do so to master the game's tactical intricacies? What percentage of big events are won by guys for whom it is their full-time job?

I don't know the specifics of how many people literally make it a full-time job, but it seems like the big events are usually won by people who are members of MTG teams. And I don't know about all teams, but as I understand it the average team spends a lot of hours preparing for each event. It might not be a literal 40-hour-a-week job, but it's certainly at least a part-time job and done very seriously and professionally, not just a few guys hanging out and playing fun games every thursday night.

Okay Peregrine these are a few, just a few of the posts you have put up just on this thread the last few days:

"40k is fun because of the awesome models, the background fiction, etc. If I want a game of deep strategy I'm going to play something else."

"I'd rather spend it on playing MTG where the prizes are better. 40k is the game I play because I like the models and setting, keeping up with the tournament metagame for tiny prizes just isn't worth it."

"MTG, especially limited formats, has MUCH greater depth of strategy/tactics than 40k"

"Once you reach a (fairly low) skill threshold the most important thing you can do to win more frequently is to improve your list."

"[C]oming from MTG I find the idea that 40k has lots of strategic depth absurd because MTG has way more complex and interesting decisions to make."

"I don't play 40k because of the deep strategy, so it costs me nothing to admit that it's a very shallow game once you get past list construction."

"MTG, especially in limited formats, is full of complex and interesting decisions that make 40k's look like a joke"

"And TBH, if I had the time and money to invest in competitive 40k and cared enough to do it, I suspect that I would do well in tournaments. But it's not worth it for the fun, and it's certainly not worth it for the tiny prizes."

"Personally I'd rather play MTG if I'm going to play a game competitively, but that's just subjective preference"

There are dozens more just like these, Peregrine i really don't mean for this to delve down to a personal level, But you clearly do not Enjoy or Value Tournement Play and added to this is the fact that by your own admission you don't play in them and you really don't want to. All you are doing is arguing for the sake of arguing. Now honestly i have no problem going round and round with you on this subject. Hell i have 8 hours here at work with nothing but forms to fill out. So i am Game. But this is not a tread about MTG or a discussion on MTG. Frankly if i wanted to discuss MTG i would talk to my 12 yr old Brother. But i don't.

This being said your original thoughts about List-Building versus Tactical on Board Moves was stimulating and enjoyable. But since then you have moved the discussion into a written fight about MTG being in YOUR own opinion better then 40k. And while that is your prerogative and your right. This thread is not about that, and the OP wasn't even close to being on that Topic.

So while i enjoyed your wit and and your vigor in your previous opinions, I Personally find that you are not only Rude to Others and very Condescending to the Game of 40k. Now i could be wrong but i am sure there are sites where you can post about the Glories of MTG but Last Time i checked, this isn't the place.

Kind of a waste to be on a tactics forum if your point is to advocate that tactics effectively is a non-issue.

I'm just saying.

For my part, I've seen how small the margin can be for victory and how seldom lists mattered in the end. The list certainly sets you up not to have a mismatch you can't handle and it allows you to flex the plan you've got... But no plan means you lose anyways. I promise.

If you define a plan as "I will roll dice and my dice will represent more powerful stuff than your dice" well... You're in for it.

The list is important. Who can say it isn't? But to try to state that strategy (not to be confused with tactics) and tactics dont matter much in comparison is to say that there is no such thing as a good General or that Generals win on paper. I don't buy that.

 Jancoran wrote:
The list is important. Who can say it isn't? But to try to state that strategy (not to be confused with tactics) and tactics dont matter much in comparison is to say that there is no such thing as a good General or that Generals win on paper. I don't buy that.

Of course there's such a thing as a good general. But the debate here is over how much being a good general in 40k matters relative to bringing a better list than your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lews Therin wrote:
This being said your original thoughts about List-Building versus Tactical on Board Moves was stimulating and enjoyable. But since then you have moved the discussion into a written fight about MTG being in YOUR own opinion better then 40k. And while that is your prerogative and your right. This thread is not about that, and the OP wasn't even close to being on that Topic.

First of all, I didn't say that MTG was better than 40k. I said that MTG is a deeper game than 40k. That is not at all the same thing, since 40k has other enjoyable things to offer even if its strategic depth is limited.

Second, you're missing the point of why MTG entered the discussion. The point is to put "tactical depth" in context by comparing 40k's depth to the depth found in other games, and MTG is the one I'm most familiar with. And it's an entirely relevant counter to posts about "40k has lots of decisions" to point out that 40k's decisions are less interesting than the ones found in other games.

So while i enjoyed your wit and and your vigor in your previous opinions, I Personally find that you are not only Rude to Others and very Condescending to the Game of 40k. Now i could be wrong but i am sure there are sites where you can post about the Glories of MTG but Last Time i checked, this isn't the place.

Oh, the poor game of 40k. Maybe instead of complaining about how I'm being "condescending" to an inanimate object you should go look where I said that I enjoy 40k (you even quoted at least one instance), just not because of its tactical depth?
Because it's pretty absurd that you're acting like I just hate 40k and want to insult it every time I get the chance, when in reality I love the game and have spent vast amounts of time and money on it. And it wasn't because I enjoy being miserable and playing bad games.

Also, last time I checked, you're not a moderator. Please don't try to tell me what I can and can't say here.

Excellent topic!

I've been playing GW games on and off since the late 1980's. I'm also a professional programmer with 15+ years of programming under my belt. It is quite interesting that there seem to be a consensus on this game being "shallow" compared to chess, because while I could probably build a chess program that consistently beat most members of this forum in a few days, building one that beat you at wh40k would probably be beyond my current skill at programming. Certainly there is no lack of complexity!

In my experience GW games are notoriously unbalanced both internally within a codex and externally compared to other codices. Currently this means using the "right" codex and exploiting that codex becomes a key skill for competitive play. Usually there are only a few "good" builds per codex. This combined with the fact that in competitive play you are always on equal footing (same number of points, "standard" terrain density, table sides has the same amount of cover etc) really limits the number of tactical situations you are likely to encounter.

Personally I like to mix competitive play with a more gamemastered approach where the game is not necessarily fair and where someone put some thought into the lists and terrain to offer interesting tactical options (and a good storyline!). Both styles are fun but I find in the competitive case the challenge is mostly to come up with a strong list, while in the second you dig into the on table tactics trying to make odd units work together on an unexpected battlefield.

Oh, and I also agree battle reports are the best foundation for discussing on table tactics! Context is everything and on paper any (balanced) unit has a hard counter.

zoat wrote:
I've been playing GW games on and off since the late 1980's. I'm also a professional programmer with 15+ years of programming under my belt. It is quite interesting that there seem to be a consensus on this game being "shallow" compared to chess, because while I could probably build a chess program that consistently beat most members of this forum in a few days, building one that beat you at wh40k would probably be beyond my current skill at programming. Certainly there is no lack of complexity!

But you can only build that chess program by using a brute-force solution that depends on having raw processing power far beyond what a human can do. We're talking about depth for human players, not depth for computer analysis.

@ Peregrine

Yes you have said that MTG was better and that you would rather spend your money, time, and (debatable) talent on it, than 40k. I of course am paraphrasing and distilling the hogwash of your regular inane comments because you tend to talk in Circles.

We weren't discussing the many decisions of 40k we were saying that 40k had a wealth of Tactical in Game decisions and Strategies. and YOU brought up MTG as a more Deep and Strategic Game that offered YOU more as a player. All of these are your opinions that you have stated very plainly the last couple of pages and Posts:

"in reality I love the game and have spent vast amounts of time and money on it" - Your Last Post about 40k ??? which is funny considering these previous Posts

"And TBH, if I had the time and money to invest in competitive 40k and cared enough to do it, I suspect that I would do well in tournaments. But it's not worth it for the fun, and it's certainly not worth it for the tiny prizes."

'I'd rather spend it on playing MTG where the prizes are better. 40k is the game I play because I like the models and setting, keeping up with the tournament metagame for tiny prizes just isn't worth it."

ABOVE are your thoughts and views, they are very Contradictory to what you are saying now. Also per your previous comments on just this Thread you come off as a miserable person who doesn't win or even play many games. Outside of apparently MTG ??? Now i don't know you personly falco peregrinus, but i would caution you with the same advice "[D]on't try to tell me what I can and can't say here."

Just a quick side note I agree with Jancoran that Creed does offer a ton more options to a 2000 point or More IG army.

zoat wrote:
Certainly there is no lack of complexity!

Complexity =/= depth. The programming required to simulate all the potential movement and shooting is incredibly high, but from the player's perspective it's not a lot different whether they're moving 3" and shooting or moving all the different numbers between 0 and 6".

The tactical depth of 40k is limited by the list building process some what. The units aren't balanced so it's very easy to spam things that are incredibly strong and still do well, even without much knowledge. The knowledge required to do well isn't particularly hard to obtain either. Sure there are some people who are very good with unusual lists, but they're just skipping the first order optimal strategy approach of having unbalanced units within their army and thinking more about it.

Note: I am not a game designer, nor a programmer. I merely took a games design module at undergrad level for course credits.

 Lews Therin wrote:
Yes you have said that MTG was better and that you would rather spend your money, time, and (debatable) talent on it, than 40k.

I said I would rather spend the time and money if I am going to play competitively. Seriously, read before posting, the fact that I would rather play MTG and win real money if I'm going to spend dozens of hours a week playtesting obsessively doesn't mean that I don't enjoy playing 40k in a less competitive context.

We weren't discussing the many decisions of 40k we were saying that 40k had a wealth of Tactical in Game decisions and Strategies. and YOU brought up MTG as a more Deep and Strategic Game that offered YOU more as a player. All of these are your opinions that you have stated very plainly the last couple of pages and Posts:

I brought it up to put the "wealth in tactical in game decisions and strategies" that 40k has is pretty disappointing compared to other games.

 gpfunk wrote:
Aside from the insults, intended or not, all the tactics that you have outlined are part of the extremely low skill ceiling of 40k.... And finally placing a hard to handle unit on an objective is well within the grasp of even the newest of scrubs.

I was not trying to insult. Go back and read again, and I was inferring that there was a communication problem, and your probably not an unskilled player.
While you have inferred that all the things lately I have learned are 'low ceiling', I don't take offense. I don't think I'm a 'low ceiling', or 'scrub' player.

 gpfunk wrote:
Your skill can only evolve so far. Eventually you hit the ceiling (and it ain't that high) and you find yourself using the same thing that proved effective before. Over and over. Eventually everyone knows and is doing it.

If your playing the same small group of guys using the same armies -- then the limit of tactics you can use will be reached. If your playing in RTT with 20 people on a regular basis, or GTs with 60+ players on a regular basis, then your pool of players is much greater. In those cases your ceiling of 'tactics' will be much greater.
One's tactics should also grow when a new codex comes out. Your 'tactics' will change with a new edition of the game. Heck, your 'tactics' can evolve with a new FAQs.

I expect your in the first case. You have played with your social network and are playing the same armies. The only difference that you guys are using are different builds of the same army, but have reached that plateau. If that's the case, I suggest attending an event like Adepticon or NOVA. Its quite refreshing to see the game on a national level.

 gpfunk wrote:
Seems that only the people who claim that 40k is entirely strategy with no list building are the ones throwing the insults around.

Of course list building is important. Please don't make a straw man arguement. (Unless you can point out people who think list building does not have any relevance)
I am arguing that there are tactics you can learn has a high ceiling -- you are arguing that the ceiling on tactics is fairly low. That's the crux of it.

 gpfunk wrote:
It's not that 40k doesn't require smart tactics, it's just less important in the grand scheme of things than having a solid list to build your foundations on.

There is no doubt that list building is important, but even a moderate list in a skilled player will win over a 'top list' in the hands of an moderate player. If the 'tactics' or 'skill' of this game was as low as you infer, this would not be the case.

text removed
Reds8n

 labmouse42 wrote:
If that was the case, why are people (like the ones I listed above) about to attend events with lists that would describe as 'meh' online -- yet win with them? I posted OrdoSean's DE/Eldar list on this forum -- and multiple people scoffed at it. OrdoSean took that list and won Templecon with it.

This isn't actually a compelling argument. The fact that people scoffed at a list doesn't mean that it was a case of a skilled player winning with a weak list, it's also possible that the scoffers were simply wrong and the list was actually a powerful one. It would hardly be the first time that people have dismissed something and then found out later that it's much better than they thought.

And also, I should point out that high-level competitive play and the tactics forum (the OP that started it) are far from the same thing. Skill and tactics may be more important at a very high level, but generally this forum isn't dealing with expert players looking to fine-tune their tactics. The majority of posts are either newbies fumbling around with terrible lists or experienced players looking to start something new, and in both of those cases list optimization is going to produce greater rewards for a given amount of effort than trying to improve skill/tactics.

I realized that after I posted it Peregrine -- it was not properly adding to my point, therefore I removed it. You 'quoted' it after I removed it

 Peregrine wrote:
The majority of posts are either clueless newbies fumbling around with terrible lists or experienced players looking to start something new, and in both of those cases list optimization is going to produce greater rewards for a given amount of effort than trying to improve skill/tactics.

You have a good point here. As I mentioned earlier, I think there is a 'definition' issue here. What kind of 'tactics' are we discussing here? Is it 'new player tactics', or 'competitive player tactics'.

One of the best tools to help teach 'tactics' to new players are youtube videos. There are a wealth of them out there for 5th edition. Perhaps someone would be willing to share his deep understanding of 'tactics' and make some with 6th edition in mind. We could ask them to be placed in the stickies at the top of this forum.

Edit : It does not change the crux of my last post -- I think 40k a high ceiling of tactics. Others think it has a low ceiling.

@peregrine
@griddlelol

Fair points both of you!

For sure. Complexity is not the same as depth!

A good example would be the huge range of weaponry in wh40k. After the first 20 or so guns each additional type of gun adds very little to the tactical aspect of the game.

Still the multitude of options each turn is what would make it difficult to program a bot. The hard part being getting the individual units to cooperate according to a common plan. I also think this is what makes it really hard for a human player to play a "perfect" game. I know for sure I still always make mistakes each game.


An interesting question is what do we mean by "depth" when comparing games?

I read a blog post on this topic a while back. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it now... However the main idea was that good game design is to make sure the decisions a player makes has a big impact on the game outcome. Forcing player decisions on matters that does not have a big impact is then bad game design. A game where you constantly have to make "big" decisions was then considered to be a "deep" game. Opinions?

The "big" decision for me when playing 40k is to decide the game plan for the army as a whole. If you decide already when you design your list how the army should play then I guess most of the big decisions are made at list making and fewer during actual play. This is quite common I think. Like a gunline for example. If your list is designed to be able to execute multiple game plans you make more of these "big" decisions at the table.

I have a feeling this is also why we often hear how good players win with "weak" lists. The list is considered "weak" because it is not optimized for a single game plan (typical netlist?), but if fact it is actually strong because the player can adapt to the current game. Just a guess...

I guess the same goes for individual units. A single purpose suicide unit is trivial to play. A multipurpose unit require more skill and thought at the table. A big problem I think is that many multipurpose units are generally not good enough at anything for competitive play.

Once again. It's not that the game is entirely based on list building. You just put yourself at a disadvantage by not optimizing your list to maximize your odds of success.

All the tactics you've talked about simply improve your odds of doing something useful. I don't claim to be the final say on any and all things tactical in 40k. I'm saying that no one in this thread has stated any sort of maneuver that has been completely knew or revolutionary to me. I'm not even close to the best or most experienced player and yet all these things are within my grasp of the game. I've played around 20 games of 5th edition and around 30 games of 6th. That's fairly green given the grand scheme of things. I'd claim that, while I don't know every single minuscule tactic and trick, I know the ones that are the most useful for improving the odds in a dice game.

And that's what it'll always be.

There are limits to what you can do in a game, sure. That doesn't mean that because you know what the opponent is capable of in theory, you are always going to make the right move.

In addition, while it is about mitigating dice rolls and knowing what you have the odds to accomplish, you need to know what to do when things start going wrong. Great players can pull out a win using strategy, movement tricks, and end game moves.

I don't doubt that in 50 games, you can be a "good" player. However, I think it's laughable that someone who doesn't go to tournaments and GTs seems to think they have almost reached the pinnacle of skill. Go to a GT and get back to me. Things often look different once you leave a small pond. I can tell you definitively that there is a higher level that separates "good" from "great" players.

If you want to talk specific tactics, that largely depends on specific armies and builds. However, there are general things that can improve one's game. There is always something to learn. Again, head to a GT with your meanest list. If the game is luck and listbuilding based, you should have no problem reaching the top bracket

Mannahnin wrote:This really sounds like you've plateaued as a player. Either you're naturally very talented at the game and will regularly win and place high at big events if you start attending them, or you're one of those guys who's better than the locals he normally faces, hasn't had to learn more advanced play, and has concluded that it doesn't exist.

Or perhaps I have seen a game with 100% transparency, where every unit and weapon is a controlled variable with a certain amount of success. It could be the fact that you view 40k as some sort of Napoleonic game of tactics while I think it's actually a very visually interesting gambling simulator. I'm allowed to theorize beyond my immediate circumstances. I theorize with the raw mathematics and averages of the game while you theorize with tournament results (which I would argue are extremely based on luck situations like list-match up, disparity in player experience, etc.). I don't think there has been a tournament yet where everyone has been equally skilled and the only difference has been the lists.

labmouse42 wrote: I expect your in the first case. You have played with your social network and are playing the same armies. The only difference that you guys are using are different builds of the same army, but have reached that plateau. If that's the case, I suggest attending an event like Adepticon or NOVA. Its quite refreshing to see the game on a national level.

Point taken on the insults. I withdraw my early statement with my apologies. It's certainly possible that you can stagnate playing the same people over and over. But when those people are equally or more skilled than you (which is what I expect I would find at a GT) and have a very good grasp of the game...how much tactical flexibility do you have? How often can you pull the wool over someone's eyes? There are no real ways to use unexpected maneuvers in 40k like there are in Warmachine. Casters can make models move up to 20" non-linearly and have them assault and then move into another assault. Stuff like that is pretty much impossible in 40k. I'd say my experience with how Warmachine works informs my opinions on 40k. Warmachine gives you much more room for creativity, and the play supports it. I'd say 40k play supports bring the most powerful lists and then playing the odds, because that has been my experience.

I will also point out that at least one tournament player, Sabr-x, has agreed with my points before. Just dig through the post and you can find it. You can knock my credentials, but you certainly can't knock his.

There is no doubt that list building is important, but even a moderate list in a skilled player will win over a 'top list' in the hands of an moderate player. If the 'tactics' or 'skill' of this game was as low as you infer, this would not be the case.

I actually think that what I am inferring is, since the skill ceiling is so accessible, if two players at the peak of 40k experience and play have a fight, their battle will be decided by luck and list-building. In an experiment where the two know all the tricks and all the unit stats, there's no room for clever technique because it'll be seen and countered. I think that luck and list-building would have the final say in 40k's ultimate test of 'skill.' I will grant you that this sort of thing means that both players must have an extreme knowledge of tactics. I'm trying to prove that in the end 40k is a game with limited variables, and thus limited tactics. The play can only get as good in the end as the list.

The experiment would be 10,000 matches with whoever won more than half being declared the winner. One plays an optimized power list, the other plays a non-optimized list. The two players are of equal skill. The result of this experiment would determine if, on average, list building is more important than tactics in a game where the most important of tactics are easily accessible.

JGrand wrote:
There are limits to what you can do in a game, sure. That doesn't mean that because you know what the opponent is capable of in theory, you are always going to make the right move.

In addition, while it is about mitigating dice rolls and knowing what you have the odds to accomplish, you need to know what to do when things start going wrong. Great players can pull out a win using strategy, movement tricks, and end game moves.

This is the most compelling argument so far. Good players know what to do in the face of poor luck. But wouldn't it still come down to taking actions to maximize your odds of success? If luck is against you wouldn't you still be better off playing the best odds you can? Your actions are something that can be decided based on a few variables like objectives, turn number, number of units left, amount of killing weapons left.

I don't doubt that in 50 games, you can be a "good" player.

I agree with your point about the fact that 50 games can make you good but not great. That's why I quoted this.

However, I think it's laughable that someone who doesn't go to tournaments and GTs seems to think they have almost reached the pinnacle of skill.

I think it's laughable that someone believes you can't theorize about something you've never actually seen/experienced yourself. Guess every space program in the world ought to shut down! In all seriousness, 40k has variables that are set. Most everything in it is set. Movement, range, when or not you can assault. With something so set out and transparent it's very easy to see how someone could draw conclusions without tournament experience.

And on this forum, you don't need direct tournament experience to draw even better conclusions. You can check out the Battle Reports forum and see hundreds of test games. From what I have seen, a lot of tournament wins involve as much luck as they do skill.

Go to a GT and get back to me. Things often look different once you leave a small pond. I can tell you definitively that there is a higher level that separates "good" from "great" players.
If you want to talk specific tactics, that largely depends on specific armies and builds. However, there are general things that can improve one's game. There is always something to learn. Again, head to a GT with your meanest list. If the game is luck and listbuilding based, you should have no problem reaching the top bracket

Is this sort of like the "Pics or it didn't happen" thing that goes around the internet? I think useful information can come from theory. If you don't then I think you'd have a problem with a lot of these forums considering a great many of them are based on theorycraft and math-hammer.

That second point of yours would be valid if I was of an equal skill as most top tournament players. Most of my points involve people of equal skill at the top of their game. So if I have somehow insinuated that I am the best 40k player in the world then I apologize, I am not. I only suggest that the tactical ceiling is low.

So summing up, I still think there is stuff for ME to learn, I just haven't found it yet in my searching. Even if I don't find it in the next hundred games...or even two hundred, the ceiling would still be much lower than other games that are made specifically with tactical depth in mind.

I played competitive MTG for a few years and I play competitive 40k. The biggest difference I see between the two is that MTG has a much larger customer base and therefore a much higher rate of attendance at events. I would hardly say the game has more depth. It is too different from 40k to easily compare. In both games however, luck, list-building and strategy are all factors. I'd also say that in both games list-building > strategy > luck. That being said, I do think that a great player with a less-optimized list will generally beat an average player with a fine-tuned list, at least that is how I have seen it play out in my experiences.

Another thing people aren't really thinking about too much in here is the use of "rogue" decks/army lists. When I played MTG I would often bring rogue decks that I knew would counter popular builds seen at my store, or the local "meta". This is where the element of surprise, or exploiting an opponent's ignorance comes in and I think it can be a pretty good way to gain an upper hand. I know that I have played people in 40k who had off kilter lists (Alex Fennell) who then gave me a really difficult game because of the nuances and relations between their units that I could not simply gauge by looking at the army-list. So while having a perfectly fine-tuned list is great, I do believe at times it is advantageous to bring something that may take others by surprise.

Ohh and one final comment that bothered me. Peregrine said something along the lines of competitive MTG players spending tons and tons of time playtesting. Competitive 40k players do the exact same thing. I know if I have an event to go to, I practice a bunch and I make sure to play-test myself against the match-ups I believe I will run into the most or that I am the most worried about.

zoat wrote:

For sure. Complexity is not the same as depth!

A good example would be the huge range of weaponry in wh40k. After the first 20 or so guns each additional type of gun adds very little to the tactical aspect of the game.

Still the multitude of options each turn is what would make it difficult to program a bot.

You really think it would be hard to program a 40k player? I don't. I think there's an illusion of having lots of options, but in reality, you can reduce them to one-three good options per unit per turn. Consider movement. The illusion is that you can move anywhere within X inches of your current location. But the reality is that most of those moves can quickly be discarded. The important options are; Move towards opponent, Move towards objective, Move away from opponent, Move towards Cover or Don't Move. For each of these basic concepts, it's then fairly easy to determine an optimal direction and distance to achieve that concept.

What's more, each unit gets to make that choice, rather than in Chess, where you get one move, total. A chessbot has to pick one move out of thousands. A 40k bot would need to pick 10 moves out of maybe 60 - the others could be quickly reduced and discarded as sub-optimal.

I think that in many ways, the decision making tree for 40k is much simpler than for chess. For one thing, there are fewer individually movable pieces in most games. Barring the transport-heavy end of 5th ed, it's typically been rare to see a game of 16 units vs 16 units (And transports are an illusion of extra units, as in most cases, 'stay in transport' was the choice to make there). And, there's a max depth to consider as well. 40k has a turn limit that chess doesn't have. Programming a computer to evaluate positions eight turns in the future isn't unreasonable in chess, but it's irrelevant in 40k. Not only that, but I know that I typically don't consider more than two turns in the future in 40k, because the dice rolling aspect of the game rewards fluidity more than just out-thinking. Most turns, and especially shooting and assaulting phases, it's preferable to maximize returns in the current phase than to plan for a couple of phases in the future.

I terms of programming the bot, I think the hardest part would be managing deployment (which is essentially setting up your strategy for the game). Once that's done, you're just maximizing the odds that it pans out, and computers can be very good at that.

This is the most compelling argument so far. Good players know what to do in the face of poor luck. But wouldn't it still come down to taking actions to maximize your odds of success? If luck is against you wouldn't you still be better off playing the best odds you can? Your actions are something that can be decided based on a few variables like objectives, turn number, number of units left, amount of killing weapons left.

Sure, there are limits in what you can do within the confines of the game. However, knowing what exactly to do isn't always so clear cut. It is easy to figure out whether or not I should charge unit X into unit Y based on dice odds. However, what does unit X do when it's done with that combat? Where does it need to be the next turn, or three turns from now? There is a larger scope than just unit v. unit variables. Lots of players either fail to keep the big picture in mind or can't learn to do so.

I think it's laughable that someone believes you can't theorize about something you've never actually seen/experienced yourself. Guess every space program in the world ought to shut down! In all seriousness, 40k has variables that are set. Most everything in it is set. Movement, range, when or not you can assault. With something so set out and transparent it's very easy to see how someone could draw conclusions without tournament experience.

Yes, you can talk about something you have never seen or experienced. However, your opinion will often be less correct than someone who actually has experienced these things. I can sit back and criticize NFL quarterbacks for bad plays, because I understand the NFL in theory. At the same time, I've never played football besides simple pickup games. So, there are nuances that perhaps I don't see or realize. I may throw my hands up after an interception and ask why a qb didn't see a safety breaking on a pass. I can understand that the qb should have looked off his target or pump faked. But until I've actually been there, I don't know exactly how hard that can be.

My analogy is similar to long tourneys and GTs. There are streams and bat reps of tourney games, and great players make mistakes in those games. While they understand "in theory" what to do, it is far different to actually play and have to make split second decisions under time constraints.

And on this forum, you don't need direct tournament experience to draw even better conclusions. You can check out the Battle Reports forum and see hundreds of test games. From what I have seen, a lot of tournament wins involve as much luck as they do skill.

Luck is important. If I roll all 1's and my opponent rolls all 6's, I will probably lose no matter what. That doesn't happen though. People love to blame luck when it goes against them and discount it when it helps them. In my experience, most games tend to even out. That isn't to say that every roll is statistically average, but that good luck early is often countered by below average luck later.

Is this sort of like the "Pics or it didn't happen" thing that goes around the internet? I think useful information can come from theory. If you don't then I think you'd have a problem with a lot of these forums considering a great many of them are based on theorycraft and math-hammer.

I'm saying that if you find yourself thinking that 40k is a shallow game, I would probably play in bigger pools of people before decisively making that claim. And yes, forums are full of theory. Theoryhammer is fun and fine, but it doesn't make one an expert. There is a ton of bad theory on here. Sometimes, I find it near impossible to reply to people because their theory is so abstracted from reality. Most players still think transports are awesome and mandatory and that Nids are trash to name some examples. Theory is not as substitute for experience.

That second point of yours would be valid if I was of an equal skill as most top tournament players. Most of my points involve people of equal skill at the top of their game. So if I have somehow insinuated that I am the best 40k player in the world then I apologize, I am not. I only suggest that the tactical ceiling is low.

Again, how do you know? Have you played with some of the better players, or is this just more theory? I can tell you that there is a definite jump in skill level.

So summing up, I still think there is stuff for ME to learn, I just haven't found it yet in my searching. Even if I don't find it in the next hundred games...or even two hundred, the ceiling would still be much lower than other games that are made specifically with tactical depth in mind.

I still go back to my point--find a bigger pool. I learn far more in the games I lose than the ones I win. You do stagnate if you play people who aren't challenging you. I'd suggest going to big events and seeing if you still feel the same.

Really interesting thread for sure. I am mostly a WHF player, ever was, ever will be but it seems some people here mixed tactics and overall strategy up a lot. Listbuilding is more the strategy part of the game while accomplishing it is the more tactical part. From a more theoretical point of view the tactical depth is a bit limited in 40k while the strategical part is what counts the most.
In WHF the most important part of the game is the deployment. No matter how good your list is, if you make mistakes during deployment it's pretty much good game before the first turn even started.
Discussing tactical stuff is - as others said - pretty hard since those decisions are made on the fly so to say and most of them are if/then decisions. So discussing lists TAC or friendly FLGS lists are the thing to go. Write a list, discuss how it would perform and optimize it. Another way might be trying to go with an odd list and try to play the mindgame but that requires pretty deep understanding of the game and quick accomplishment of that because good players will realise what's going on pretty fast. For example I run some kind of green tide in WHF with my orcs and I got told it wont work since my army lacks of killing power. I havent tried it on a big tournament yet but for now it worked quiet good. Since you just get KPs for wiped out regiments I try to get in cc with all my huge regiments while on mobile and one killy regiment trys to snag some KPs. When my opponent knows what my plan/strategy is things getting hard pretty fast but most of them dont see a treat in my list since it is very far from the cookie-cutter lists. I dont know how good such mindgames are possible in 40k but in WHF it's possible.