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.

Being widely accepted is actually very important.

Martel732 wrote:
Being widely accepted is actually very important.

Not particularly. It's one tournament circle for a relatively small % of the game playing community. Just because a bunch of people have HEARD of it and a bit of people end up playing the missions with people who go to the tournaments and even less then that go to the events themselves... well... that doesn't count for much.

I don't play the official missions, so it's hard for me to relate.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't play the official missions, so it's hard for me to relate.

I try not to play the official game , but I can understand that most people do.

"House rules" taking over "official rules" is actually pretty common. For example, the most competitive game, StarCraft, did not use actual Blizzard maps for tournaments, it used maps specifically made for competitive play. Does this mean StarCraft was a trash competitive game? Far from it.

ThePorcupine wrote:
"House rules" taking over "official rules" is actually pretty common. For example, the most competitive game, StarCraft, did not use actual Blizzard maps for tournaments, it used maps specifically made for competitive play. Does this mean StarCraft was a trash competitive game? Far from it.

No, it means that there is a very small % of the player base who played tournaments and that smaller % of the player base doesn't get to dictate to the majority how good or bad the game is based on their house rules.

Also, Starcrafts tourneys were not making up new rules for the way terrain worked and if they applied a time limit, time limits were not necessarily a core component of the majority of players games.

I played a gak load of SC. And online, it was mostly 5/10 min no rush. Or UMS because goofy matches were great.

I can't say that Hydra Farmer or Tower Defense being a super popular match types should dictate the conversation on what is balanced or not in starcraft.

Or do you think Hydra farmer is a good metric with which to judge Starcrafts gameplay?

There can be tactics. Smaller games on a larger board shows it better.

Yeah, a lot of it involves fire priority, smart targeting and deployment. Those are still tactics though.

Let say you have three objectives in the middle of the board. Tactics would include how would you allocate forces to take them.

Space marines vs guard. What can the guard player get on the objective quickly? Can he get AT weapons there? A lot of AP weapons? If he has missiles and lascannons, should I send a rhino in, or is footing it better? What artillery is in range, and how important is the objective? (AKA will he use all, some, or none of his artillery to fight off an attack there.) What cover is available, and will popping smoke be enough? Can I devote enough shooting to defeat him there? Can I devote enough to either suppress him and get into melee, or hold the objective? (Suppressed in this case would mean force the player to choose between keeping his models in cover in a less ideal location, or have them destroyed/engaged.). If I'm strong on this objective, but too weak on others, what can he send to reinforce? What deep strikers do either side have availible, and are they worth using here?

Another example, could be self objectives. Not a point to take and hold on the battlefield, but goals that let you take the initiative. A personal objective might be to use shooting/melee to clear a zone for deep-strikers, or clear a zone to threaten deep-strikers to force your opponent to move to cover that area. Getting a screen in place after the initial screening units are killed. Keeping 'counter charge' units on hand and in cover for where they're needed.

Deployment. Can I deploy so I can take objectives? Is my opponent massing in one spot, and can I cover for that? Should I spread out to claim targets, or should I mass to fight him off. Can my opponent infiltrate, and if so in significant numbers? What can cross the board in one turn? How should I counter-deploy? What should be in reserves to strike further up the board? What should be in reserves to protect it from fire? What should be in reserves to make a first turn more likely?

These are all tactics. So is "what do I shoot first", and while frequently the answer is the nastiest thing your opponent has, that's not always the case. It could be that squad sitting on an objective, or preparing to charge.

At larger games, as the board gets more crowded, these choices become smaller as there is less room to maneuver (too much stuff, and danger no matter where you go).

I feel like the sweet spot for a 6x4 board right now is probably somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 pts, with a good mix of terrain.

 Quickjager wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
There are absolutely tactics in 40k. Loads. Do I deep strike or deploy as normal? Deep strike within 9" to get rapid fire while risking auspex scan casualties? This determines which order you should deep strike in. Advance towards the objective or get more firepower by standing still? Pop smoke and advance or sit back and shoot? How to deploy to deny having too many vehicles locked in combat? That deployment will be different if the enemy has flyers as well. Do you pop "take cover" stratagem now, or wait until they target the more important squad you have? Or is he just bluffing? Do you remove casualties from the front to take you out of combat or from the back to keep you on the objective?

There are tons of tactics. I'm really enjoying it.

Just yesterday a raven guard player infiltrated half his army up close to my tanks and charged me 1st turn locking down 4 vehicles. I was able to back up and blow away most of his forces but he pulled the brilliant tactic to charge his Shrike into a basilisk I had wedged into a corner so I couldn't back out. And as long as he didn't kill my basilisk, I couldn't shoot his shrike (which was worth a ton of secondary points for me).

Basically what everyone else said, there is no choice in any of those. There is a clear answer 99% of the time and to not take it is not a tactic but a failure of the player to recognize it.

So, shrike just magically appeared where he needed to be (assuming he had to pass a screen)? The other player didn't have to work him over to the Basilisk? There was no other plan if shrike died before it got there? There were no other plans for shrike to choose between and this was the only valid option? Feels like you're leaving a lot out there.

 Lance845 wrote:
Also, Starcrafts tourneys were not making up new rules for the way terrain worked

They absolutely were. Within the confines of the game engine, sure, because they couldn't mod the game or release a new client. For example it was discovered that workers could be pushed through certain terrain obstacles if their AI also had a harvesting target, or was in the process of building an adjacent building. Would never happen on standard starcraft maps, but some tourneys worked this quirk into their maps to allow for new scouting routes and rush strategies. Same with neutral zerg eggs as part of the map. Tournament maps would include these destructible eggs to block potential expansions or wall off chokes.

All the more reason for it to be complete nonsense when discussing sc's gameplay and balance.

Why... did you bring up "starcraft tourneys never messed with how terrain worked" then?

I must be missing your point. I said the heavier emphasis on objectives in missions like ITC balances out the 1st turn advantage. You said ITC doesn't count because it's "house rules" and not official 40k and that people who play ITC are a minority. Martel said being widely accepted is very important, and I agree. When I'm talking about "balance" and "tactics" I'm very much talking about the more competitive scene. Most tournaments now use either ITC or some iteration thereof. Do most people who come into a store to play a friendly game of 40k use rulebook missions? Probably. And that's fine. They're happy mashing two armies against each other without too much thought like you're happy playing goofy starcraft maps.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Why... did you bring up "starcraft tourneys never messed with how terrain worked" then?

I must be missing your point. I said the heavier emphasis on objectives in missions like ITC balances out the 1st turn advantage. You said ITC doesn't count because it's "house rules" and not official 40k and that people who play ITC are a minority. Martel said being widely accepted is very important, and I agree. When I'm talking about "balance" and "tactics" I'm very much talking about the more competitive scene. Most tournaments now use either ITC or some iteration thereof. Do most people who come into a store to play a friendly game of 40k use rulebook missions? Probably. And that's fine. They're happy mashing two armies against each other without too much thought like you're happy playing goofy starcraft maps.

Competitive 40k can be played in any place at any time and not necessarily emulating a tournament. You can get super competitive play groups that play out of a few garages. Again, the amount of people who actually go to tourneys are a minority, and the people who play using tourney rules are a slightly larger minority. This thread asks "Is there any tactics in 40k tabletop" and the answer is what 40k has for tactics barely meets the text book definition of it and has about as much depth as a sheet of paper.

You argue that ITC missions and rules add to the tactical depth. Sure. But those are house rules. Not actual 40k any more than me deciding to alternate activating units with my opponent is. Because it's just house rules. Even if you have 20 people to the every 1 that use ITC over AA the amount of people who just play out of the book are going to outnumber us combined by 100 to 1. So it doesn't matter how widely accepted as far as house rules go your play style is. They are meaningless when discussing 40ks actual game play. And even if ITC missions and rules DO add more tactical depth, your now up to the depth of 3 sheets of paper instead of 1. Great.

Missions can only do so much when one of the most dominate strategies is to just table the opponent as games tend to run out of models to kill before you run out of turns to play. If time limits are an issue (like in tournament play) then objectives might matter but that's mostly to due with the logistical limitations of running a tournament in a timely manner than good game/mission design.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
All the fiddly mechanics, niche special rules, and more varied profiles added more things to consider so it made decisions feel less cut and dry.

The problem is that it makes decisions harder, but "this is hard because I don't understand the rules" is really poor game design. It isn't difficult because you're trying to out-smart your opponent and you aren't sure which move is going to be the right one to counter their plans, it's difficult because there are too many random dice involved to quickly do the math necessary to make an accurate evaluation (and don't want to bog the game down getting out a calculator for every shot). So yeah, it's less cut and dry, but in a way that takes away the value of player choices and encourages you to just flip a coin between your options and see what the dice decide.

Its not about lack of understanding rules but more to do with multiple factors that make the answer less obvious. With 8th right now its generally straight forward enough to point the AT weapons at the vehicles, anti infantry weapons at the infantry, throw buckets of dice at anything, etc. Terrain is in a lot of ways a non factor as it doesn't limit movement and it doesn't come into play very often for defense (non infantry or large squads tend to not be able to trigger the conditions to allow for any cover save modifications). Lack of blast weapons means that it doesn't matter how jam packet an area of the board is because that battle cannon is only going to do D6 shots. Battlefield conditions such as units in or out of cover, units packed in close together (say after deep striking in or a low consolidation roll), proximity to other units, etc gave opportunity for viable usage of weapons outside of their designed target priority (firing a mortar at a group of deepstruck terminators because while it will generally plink off that armor, their in base to base so that small template is going to get a lot of hits per shot) or making target priority more difficult (you would normally fire your plasma weapons at those marines but they are in ruins but those scouts are only in light cover). Niche rules such as pinning or blind while core rules like morale checks/falling back can be a risk/reward way to neutralize units without having to fully dedicate the firepower required to wipe a unit off the board. Same with trying to neutralize a "parking lot" strategy by spreading shaken/stun results to multiple vehicles instead of trying to focus fire down two or three at a time. Defensive options like jinking or going to ground gave risk/reward decision making to the defender as it might be worth risking not jinking to potentially have better shooting next turn or it might be better to just go ahead and go to ground for a better cover save than having a worse save and then end up pinned anyway. Again less clear cut decisions but none of that is based on lack of player knowledge. Being able to do the math quickly and easily leads to min/maxing being too obvious and limits your real options outside of playing to a handicap. End up with situations like Dark Reaper spam being the best option because the math says it is and there aren't enough variables to throw a wrench into the works for other units to shine.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
There are absolutely tactics in 40k. Loads. Do I deep strike or deploy as normal? Deep strike within 9" to get rapid fire while risking auspex scan casualties? This determines which order you should deep strike in. Advance towards the objective or get more firepower by standing still? Pop smoke and advance or sit back and shoot? How to deploy to deny having too many vehicles locked in combat? That deployment will be different if the enemy has flyers as well. Do you pop "take cover" stratagem now, or wait until they target the more important squad you have? Or is he just bluffing? Do you remove casualties from the front to take you out of combat or from the back to keep you on the objective?

There are tons of tactics. I'm really enjoying it.

Just yesterday a raven guard player infiltrated half his army up close to my tanks and charged me 1st turn locking down 4 vehicles. I was able to back up and blow away most of his forces but he pulled the brilliant tactic to charge his Shrike into a basilisk I had wedged into a corner so I couldn't back out. And as long as he didn't kill my basilisk, I couldn't shoot his shrike (which was worth a ton of secondary points for me).

Basically what everyone else said, there is no choice in any of those. There is a clear answer 99% of the time and to not take it is not a tactic but a failure of the player to recognize it.

So, shrike just magically appeared where he needed to be (assuming he had to pass a screen)? The other player didn't have to work him over to the Basilisk? There was no other plan if shrike died before it got there? There were no other plans for shrike to choose between and this was the only valid option? Feels like you're leaving a lot out there.

According to him, yes he did in fact magically pass the screen because he somehow got 4 of his vehicles charged the FIRST TURN! He either played incompetently by failing to position his vehicles correctly or he didn't in fact HAVE a screen in which case he lost in the LIST-BUILDING part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let us look at his army list, oh armored company? Hmm no screens at all, alright yes I see.

He lost in the list building part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or perhaps it was his ITC competitive list? Hmm he DOES have a screen, but he STILL got charged first turn!

Despite list or play goofs there are many choices to be made. And when the dice aren't on your side you have to be able to adjust accordingly as well.

If you guys really think 40K has nothing to offer then why play?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Despite list or play goofs there are many choices to be made. And when the dice aren't on your side you have to be able to adjust accordingly as well.

If you guys really think 40K has nothing to offer then why play?

For a lot of reasons.

First and foremost 40k has the largest and most easily accessible player base. I would much rather play something like Konflikt 47'. Weird War II is an amazing setting and the rule set is much more tactical and to my liking. But feth,,, I got nobody to play with. So no point in investing in it.

Secondly, it's easy enough to fix most of the problems with 40k with house rules. Beyond the Gates of 40k IS the much better game with much better tactics and game play. I don't have as many people as I would like playing it yet. But I get a few more every now and then. Even just these house ruled LoS and terrain rules ( https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750334.page ) make a pretty significant difference in the game play.

Finally the models are good and the conversion/painting is fun. The hobby is actually about more than the game itself. While I have the most fun having a real good game, between games having good models to build and paint is worth something in and of itself.

 Quickjager wrote:
According to him, yes he did in fact magically pass the screen because he somehow got 4 of his vehicles charged the FIRST TURN! He either played incompetently by failing to position his vehicles correctly or he didn't in fact HAVE a screen in which case he lost in the LIST-BUILDING part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let us look at his army list, oh armored company? Hmm no screens at all, alright yes I see.

He lost in the list building part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or perhaps it was his ITC competitive list? Hmm he DOES have a screen, but he STILL got charged first turn!

Haha. Boy you just can't WAIT to be right, can you? You can feel it in your bones! Yes it was the ITC list I posted about 3 weeks ago. Good job digging through my post history, kiddo! You's a real detective now.
This was 1250 vs 1250 I had ~50 guardsmen for a screen, and 7 vehicles to screen (4 basilisks, Pask, tank commander, and regular russ). The screen was 1 squad thick. I didn't know where he was gonna come from. He showed up with aggressors and some jetpack bois and shrike. The aggressors blew right through my screen (not that they needed to thanks to jetpack bois) and everyone charged in.

I still think I deployed correctly, as, apart from the screen and sniping Pask, he didn't kill much, and the following turn I blew him away. The trick with Shrike bought him another few turns and made it closer than it maybe should have been, but I ended up winning the game regardless. Sorry to disappoint.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Despite list or play goofs there are many choices to be made. And when the dice aren't on your side you have to be able to adjust accordingly as well.

If you guys really think 40K has nothing to offer then why play?

For a lot of reasons.

First and foremost 40k has the largest and most easily accessible player base. I would much rather play something like Konflikt 47'. Weird War II is an amazing setting and the rule set is much more tactical and to my liking. But feth,,, I got nobody to play with. So no point in investing in it.

Secondly, it's easy enough to fix most of the problems with 40k with house rules. Beyond the Gates of 40k IS the much better game with much better tactics and game play. I don't have as many people as I would like playing it yet. But I get a few more every now and then. Even just these house ruled LoS and terrain rules ( https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750334.page ) make a pretty significant difference in the game play.

Finally the models are good and the conversion/painting is fun. The hobby is actually about more than the game itself. While I have the most fun having a real good game, between games having good models to build and paint is worth something in and of itself.

I mean those are mostly better terrain rules, but I don't see how those escape the perception that there is no choice.

Screening for -1 to hit? That's just deployment and list building.
Hopping onto a hill to beat a screen and shoot behind it? Deployment.
Hiding behind dense cover? Deployment.

Either it drastically changes the outcome so that you always do it or it doesn't change it enough to matter - or that seems to be the refrain.

Do you think adding 1st turn penalties will improve the game?

For example, a variation of the old Night Fighting rule where the first turn has a -1 to hit. Certain wargear allows you to fire without penalty in the first turn - i.e. roll back in:
[Search light [3 pt]: A model equipped with searchlight can illuminate an enemy unit instead of shooting. Select a single enemy unit within 24" - all shooting attacks made against the illuminated target and the model equipped with the searchlight does not suffer -1 to hit penalty during the first turn.]
[Blacksun Filter [5 pt]: A model equipped with Blacksun Filter is immune to -1 to hit penalty during first turn.]
[Auspex [5 pt]: A model equipped with Auspex can scan for nearby enemies instead of shooting. Select a single enemy unit within 24" - all shooting attacks made against that unit does not suffer -1 to hit penalty during first turn.]

etc.

You can name the rule something like "The Calm Before the Storm" to describe the moment before all hell breaks loose that is current 40k turn 1 alpha strike.

Technically speaking, every "choice" you make is actually an impulse driven by hormones, instincts, and fight-or-flight responses, and the only reason you play wargames in the first place is that they stimulate responses in your brain that make you think that you're increasing your chances to pass on your genes.

Really, every game of 40k is won or lost in the EVOLUTION stage, there is no list-building because markings on a piece of paper only have significance when interpreted as light signals on the retina of an eyeball!

...you can pseudo-intellectually BS until the cows come home, it doesn't make your point not crap. Yes, if you classify deployment, exploiting mistakes by your opponent, and twisting odds to maximise a favorable outcome "not tactics" then there is no tactics in 40k. If you sort everything that happens in a game into a bin labeled "obviously not tactics, but some other thing" then you can correctly make the statement that there is no tactics in 40k.

Congratulations. You have achieved something, apparently. Pat yourself on the back.

Thanks the_scotsman, I was waiting for a post like that one.

No one is saying Warhammer40k is marvelous game of tactical depth, but some people seems too invested in spreading the word that is a extremely shallow game without any kind of player involvement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Despite list or play goofs there are many choices to be made. And when the dice aren't on your side you have to be able to adjust accordingly as well.

If you guys really think 40K has nothing to offer then why play?

For a lot of reasons.

First and foremost 40k has the largest and most easily accessible player base. I would much rather play something like Konflikt 47'. Weird War II is an amazing setting and the rule set is much more tactical and to my liking. But feth,,, I got nobody to play with. So no point in investing in it.

Secondly, it's easy enough to fix most of the problems with 40k with house rules. Beyond the Gates of 40k IS the much better game with much better tactics and game play. I don't have as many people as I would like playing it yet. But I get a few more every now and then. Even just these house ruled LoS and terrain rules ( https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750334.page ) make a pretty significant difference in the game play.

Finally the models are good and the conversion/painting is fun. The hobby is actually about more than the game itself. While I have the most fun having a real good game, between games having good models to build and paint is worth something in and of itself.

I mean those are mostly better terrain rules, but I don't see how those escape the perception that there is no choice.

Screening for -1 to hit? That's just deployment and list building.
Hopping onto a hill to beat a screen and shoot behind it? Deployment.
Hiding behind dense cover? Deployment.

Either it drastically changes the outcome so that you always do it or it doesn't change it enough to matter - or that seems to be the refrain.

Because movement and positioning matters again without requiring facings. Being in or behind terrain that slows movement can help prevent chargers. If you have light terrain, your unit, and then another unit behind you than 1) the unit behind you is untargetable, and your unit behind the terrain has a -1 to hit. On the other hand you also suffer a -1 to hit against everything beyond the terrain. And if the enemy moves into the terrain first they will gain the bonus to sv and exposed both your first unit and make the second unit targetable. Whats better? Occupying the terrain early and exposing the other unit or taking the penalty on yourself to keep the other unit a little safer from that angle and risk your opponent claiming the terrain bonus?

During your every movement phase you look at the lay of the land and it's not just where the terrain sits but also where your own units sit and how they are spread out that can impact what in your army can be shot at and at what if any penalty. But also what in your army can shoot back and at what penalty. You need to actually move into firing positions. And sometimes that means exposing yourself to enemy fire to do so.

I can see the obvious and sad attempt to just mimic me. But it falls flat because you're wrong. Those terrain rules DO add some tactical depth to the game that is sorely lacking. Not a ton mind you. But a hell of a lot more than ITC missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Do you think adding 1st turn penalties will improve the game?

For example, a variation of the old Night Fighting rule where the first turn has a -1 to hit. Certain wargear allows you to fire without penalty in the first turn - i.e. roll back in:
[Search light [3 pt]: A model equipped with searchlight can illuminate an enemy unit instead of shooting. Select a single enemy unit within 24" - all shooting attacks made against the illuminated target and the model equipped with the searchlight does not suffer -1 to hit penalty during the first turn.]
[Blacksun Filter [5 pt]: A model equipped with Blacksun Filter is immune to -1 to hit penalty during first turn.]
[Auspex [5 pt]: A model equipped with Auspex can scan for nearby enemies instead of shooting. Select a single enemy unit within 24" - all shooting attacks made against that unit does not suffer -1 to hit penalty during first turn.]

etc.

You can name the rule something like "The Calm Before the Storm" to describe the moment before all hell breaks loose that is current 40k turn 1 alpha strike.

No. Your just prolonging the alpha strike or shifting it to the second player. You don't actually address the problem you just move when it hits the hardest.

the_scotsman wrote:
Technically speaking, every "choice" you make is actually an impulse driven by hormones, instincts, and fight-or-flight responses, and the only reason you play wargames in the first place is that they stimulate responses in your brain that make you think that you're increasing your chances to pass on your genes.

Really, every game of 40k is won or lost in the EVOLUTION stage, there is no list-building because markings on a piece of paper only have significance when interpreted as light signals on the retina of an eyeball!

...you can pseudo-intellectually BS until the cows come home, it doesn't make your point not crap. Yes, if you classify deployment, exploiting mistakes by your opponent, and twisting odds to maximise a favorable outcome "not tactics" then there is no tactics in 40k. If you sort everything that happens in a game into a bin labeled "obviously not tactics, but some other thing" then you can correctly make the statement that there is no tactics in 40k.

Congratulations. You have achieved something, apparently. Pat yourself on the back.

Not sure if you were referencing my post there. I was just demonstrating the common retorts about how 40K doesn't have tactics..

You and I are on the same page.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


Because movement and positioning matters again without requiring facings. Being in or behind terrain that slows movement can help prevent chargers. If you have light terrain, your unit, and then another unit behind you than 1) the unit behind you is untargetable, and your unit behind the terrain has a -1 to hit. On the other hand you also suffer a -1 to hit against everything beyond the terrain. And if the enemy moves into the terrain first they will gain the bonus to sv and exposed both your first unit and make the second unit targetable. Whats better? Occupying the terrain early and exposing the other unit or taking the penalty on yourself to keep the other unit a little safer from that angle and risk your opponent claiming the terrain bonus?

I'll respond with your own words.

The best choice, always, is to deal as much damage as possible to the enemy to weaken their retaliation. So you build your list to find ways to do that and then deploy intelligently to mitigate their first turn and maximize yours. And then you shoot the lascanons at the tanks, the anti infantry at the infantry, and charge the guns to tie them up on their next turn.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Because movement and positioning matters again without requiring facings. Being in or behind terrain that slows movement can help prevent chargers. If you have light terrain, your unit, and then another unit behind you than 1) the unit behind you is untargetable, and your unit behind the terrain has a -1 to hit. On the other hand you also suffer a -1 to hit against everything beyond the terrain. And if the enemy moves into the terrain first they will gain the bonus to sv and exposed both your first unit and make the second unit targetable. Whats better? Occupying the terrain early and exposing the other unit or taking the penalty on yourself to keep the other unit a little safer from that angle and risk your opponent claiming the terrain bonus?

I'll respond with your own words.

The best choice, always, is to deal as much damage as possible to the enemy to weaken their retaliation. So you build your list to find ways to do that and then deploy intelligently to mitigate their first turn and maximize yours. And then you shoot the lascanons at the tanks, the anti infantry at the infantry, and charge the guns to tie them up on their next turn.

And for the most part you are (read: I am) not wrong! Your options in the shooting phase are exactly as shallow. The terrain rules only really improve the movement phase by dictating what can be shot and to try and manipulate enemy movement by attempting to force them into certain avenues to find favorable shooting positions. There is risk and reward involved with significantly less clear answers as to what is the best place to be. As opposed to the current, "Am I in range? Yup, ok then I shoot it."

The best choice isn't always deal the most damage. I frequently play defensively, trading offense for defense. But, I don't have a high power army.

 Lance845 wrote:
There is risk and reward involved with significantly less clear answers as to what is the best place to be. As opposed to the current, "Am I in range? Yup, ok then I shoot it."

If only it actually played out like this consistently as opposed to actually having to think about casualty removal, charges in the current turn, breaking your screen, and exerting board control. The fact of the matter is that no that isn't the best answer, especially against a skilled opponent who is capable of taking advantage of that kind of positioning to block out further movements or open up avenues to counter your shooting units.

If you ask me, 40k has tactics, as much as any wargame.

If the only thing that makes a game "tactically deep" is how obfuscated the best course of action is, then clearly the most tactical game is one with 700 pages of rules that is very disorganized. After all, there's no obvious best course of action.

It is true that in 40k, there is always a best course of action for any given movement/shooting/assault. This is true for both players. However, assuming lists and terrain are fair, there's still outplaying and outsmarting your opponent. Lascannons should obviously shoot at tanks and not IG, right? But my opponent didn't plop down his tanks right in front of my lascannons (though that itself isn't tactics, because apparently deployment isn't tactical or something). So now my lascannons have to move. Clearly that's the best course of action. Which direction? Right? They can see around the terrain easily, but they're exposed to enemy guns. Left? They can shut down his vehicle's ability to move safely out of the cover, but can't fire this turn. They'll be protected though. Not move them at all? Shuts down most of the enemy's movement options, but if he keeps his tanks still, they don't really get to participate in the game, and the lascannons are a bit exposed. My flyers, instead, could fly over and hit his tanks, but he's got jump infantry nearby that will assault them and hurt 'em bad. Perhaps instead I should pivot and fly along his line, hitting some infantry, even if they're AT flyers. Or I could even drop into hover, and try to tempt his vehicles out from hiding for easy shots at the flyers, but also return fire from my lascannons...

oh wait, it's mathematically best to ... well, I'm sure one of those options is clearly the best. Math will prove it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you ask me, 40k has tactics, as much as any wargame.

If the only thing that makes a game "tactically deep" is how obfuscated the best course of action is, then clearly the most tactical game is one with 700 pages of rules that is very disorganized. After all, there's no obvious best course of action.

It is true that in 40k, there is always a best course of action for any given movement/shooting/assault. This is true for both players. However, assuming lists and terrain are fair, there's still outplaying and outsmarting your opponent. Lascannons should obviously shoot at tanks and not IG, right? But my opponent didn't plop down his tanks right in front of my lascannons (though that itself isn't tactics, because apparently deployment isn't tactical or something). So now my lascannons have to move. Clearly that's the best course of action. Which direction? Right? They can see around the terrain easily, but they're exposed to enemy guns. Left? They can shut down his vehicle's ability to move safely out of the cover, but can't fire this turn. They'll be protected though. Not move them at all? Shuts down most of the enemy's movement options, but if he keeps his tanks still, they don't really get to participate in the game, and the lascannons are a bit exposed. My flyers, instead, could fly over and hit his tanks, but he's got jump infantry nearby that will assault them and hurt 'em bad. Perhaps instead I should pivot and fly along his line, hitting some infantry, even if they're AT flyers. Or I could even drop into hover, and try to tempt his vehicles out from hiding for easy shots at the flyers, but also return fire from my lascannons...

oh wait, it's mathematically best to ... well, I'm sure one of those options is clearly the best. Math will prove it.

Maybe another way of saying this is, risk plays a large role in outcomes in 40k. Tactics in 40k often boil down to understanding risk and how to manage it.

I can understand why so many people would say list-building is more important than tactics. It doesn't feel like you are making tactical decisions by aiming the Lascannon at the tank or the Heavy Bolter at the Mob - you picked them beforehand.

But there is so much random stuff that pops up in 40k. For me, it's common to move from plan A to plan D after a bad dice roll. It's usually not the Lascannon that takes down the last tank, it's a random krak grenade. It's usually not the Heavy Bolter that takes out the Mob, it gets left on the board so I can deal with another priority target.

I don't know... having a good list is important, being able to respond when things going wrong seems to be what wins games. Saying this as a CSM player.

It's not that deployment isn't tactical. It's that if your whole argument is that deployment is tactical then the tactics end before turn 1 begins.

If the deepest 40ks tactics get is pregame list building and set up then what the hell is going on for the next 5 turns? Shouldn't the actual game play be the most tactical aspect of the game?

And again, it's not complexity of mechanics, it's playing against the other player and complexity of choice.

It mostly boils down to how every unit can always do all their things coupled with you activating every unit, all at once, every turn.

The enemy has no chance to respond. You have no risk of response. So you don't worry about what the other player is going to do with your each action because they can't DO anything. Does it actually matter where the enemy moves a single unit? No. Because it doesn't actually impact your next decision. The only thing that actually matters to your decision making is the enemies position at the end of their entire turn and what you have left that survived it.

Because of that your less making decisions based on the other players actions and more based on probabilities of causing the most damage to the enemies force. You KNOW that if they are in range to smite that they will smite. Because why wouldn't they smite? They can. It costs them nothing. So they will. You know they will shoot every gun they have at probably the best target they can reach. If all they have is a tank in range of the anti infantry guns they will shoot all those guns at that tank just on the chance that it causes some damage. Because to NOT do that is just to waste the opportunity that shooting their guns provides.

That is the shallowness of 40ks tactical depth. Failure to fire off your smites or shoot your guns isn't a tactical choice, it's a failure of the player to recognize opportunity and take it.

Again, the one exception to this, is stratagems. They are the one method through which players can, sometimes, depending on the army, have options to interrupt your actions and make you question your decisions. Auspex scan being one that has come up a bit. But they are only usable on a limited currency and only usable once per phase (and since most can only be used in a specific phase often once a turn). So their actual impact is drastically limited by the very nature of their cost and use.

In other systems, AGAIN, you can interrupt the players turn with reactions. Kind of half activations that eat up your activation for the turn but get to mess with the players actions. It makes overwatch not something you do because you can and you have to, but a tactical decision you make. Do you shoot with these guys NOW, or do you set them up to make a reaction so that the enemy has to worry about retaliation when you deepstrike in or attempt a charge? If you set them up for a reaction they might be avoided and not get to shoot at all. On the other hand they might save themselves or other units because of it. You can shoot at that unit to try to remove them, but they might just decide to react by taking cover. They won't get to shoot back this turn but they might have mitigated your activation in return. 40k doesn't have those kinds of choices. It doesn't have the DEPTH of those kinds of choices.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's not that deployment isn't tactical. It's that if your whole argument is that deployment is tactical then the tactics end before turn 1 begins.

If the deepest 40ks tactics get is pregame list building and set up then what the hell is going on for the next 5 turns? Shouldn't the actual game play be the most tactical aspect of the game?

And again, it's not complexity of mechanics, it's playing against the other player and complexity of choice.

It mostly boils down to how every unit can always do all their things coupled with you activating every unit, all at once, every turn.

The enemy has no chance to respond. You have no risk of response. So you don't worry about what the other player is going to do with your each action because they can't DO anything. Does it actually matter where the enemy moves a single unit? No. Because it doesn't actually impact your next decision. The only thing that actually matters to your decision making is the enemies position at the end of their entire turn and what you have left that survived it.

Because of that your less making decisions based on the other players actions and more based on probabilities of causing the most damage to the enemies force. You KNOW that if they are in range to smite that they will smite. Because why wouldn't they smite? They can. It costs them nothing. So they will. You know they will shoot every gun they have at probably the best target they can reach. If all they have is a tank in range of the anti infantry guns they will shoot all those guns at that tank just on the chance that it causes some damage. Because to NOT do that is just to waste the opportunity that shooting their guns provides.

That is the shallowness of 40ks tactical depth. Failure to fire off your smites or shoot your guns isn't a tactical choice, it's a failure of the player to recognize opportunity and take it.

Again, the one exception to this, is stratagems. They are the one method through which players can, sometimes, depending on the army, have options to interrupt your actions and make you question your decisions. Auspex scan being one that has come up a bit. But they are only usable on a limited currency and only usable once per phase (and since most can only be used in a specific phase often once a turn). So their actual impact is drastically limited by the very nature of their cost and use.

In other systems, AGAIN, you can interrupt the players turn with reactions. Kind of half activations that eat up your activation for the turn but get to mess with the players actions. It makes overwatch not something you do because you can and you have to, but a tactical decision you make. Do you shoot with these guys NOW, or do you set them up to make a reaction so that the enemy has to worry about retaliation when you deepstrike in or attempt a charge? If you set them up for a reaction they might be avoided and not get to shoot at all. On the other hand they might save themselves or other units because of it. You can shoot at that unit to try to remove them, but they might just decide to react by taking cover. They won't get to shoot back this turn but they might have mitigated your activation in return. 40k doesn't have those kinds of choices. It doesn't have the DEPTH of those kinds of choices.

TL;DR I don't like the types of choices you make in 40ks IGOUGO system and instead of acknowledging that a different form of activation or interruption based system has DIFFERENT choices I think they're BETTER choices. To be fair that's fine for you to have your opinion but you've already posted several times that 40k somehow boils down to 'get in the best place to shoot the best' and don't seem willing to walk back from that line.