Switch Theme:

Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Hacking Interventor





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

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

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

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Costs a lot less, too.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Hacking Interventor





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


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

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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







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

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

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

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




San Jose, CA

Wyldhunt -

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 04:53:42


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yes, exactly.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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

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


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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Wyldhunt -

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 05:04:21


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






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

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 05:51:16


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 06:26:32


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






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

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

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Wyldhunt wrote:


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


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

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


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


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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/28 07:58:36



 
   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





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

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

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

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


Maybe fun gaming is not your thing.

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

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

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

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






 Blackie wrote:

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


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

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

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

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

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

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Wyldhunt wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





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

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

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

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


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

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

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






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


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

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

The extreme end of designing for control are combinatorial abstracts like chess and go. No luck (other than who goes first), no variable setups, no asymmetric forces, fixed victory triggers, etc. Clearly, this style of game emphasizes player skills and knowledge - especially considering the vast decision spaces created by a game like chess or go. The skillful play lies in predicting and visualizing your way through this vast decision space.

The above emphasis on player "control" is much different I feel from the ethos surrounding the design of earlier editions. I don't think earlier versions of the game were intended to be taken as competitively as it has become. Yes, there have been GT's for a long time and people making min-maxed power lists forever. But that's a consequence of what the players are bringing and wanting out of the game rather than what the game itself was trying to do.

I think the ethos of older editions was far more interested in telling a story and creating "drama" and unexpected situations that resulted from the "chaos of war." No plan survives contact with the enemy, etc. People didn't play Orks back in 2nd edition because they wanted to be ultra competitive. They played them because Orks were hilarious and every other thing you did required rolling on some ridiculous table to see if some grotling disaster occurred.

This isn't to say that older editions lacked tactics, but rather that they had less control baked into the design. In 9th edition, high degrees of control push the game towards optimization. What's the optimal army list, the optimal deployment approach (given static objectives and increasing interest on symmetrical tables), the optimal firing order, etc. Like with combinatorial abstracts, there is a sense that there is a "solution" to any given situation.

In older editions, players were more along for a narrative, dramatic ride. You knew going into a game that *bad stuff* was going to randomly happen to you, and you just hoped a bit more bad stuff would happen to your opponent than to you. But to be sure there were tactics in the game, but these emanated from having to make the best choice you could under sub-optimal circumstances and in response to unforeseen events upsetting "the plan." It was a game of managing contingencies in the face of uncertainty, rather than of executing and honing a tight line of play.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/28 13:25:37


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





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


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

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

The extreme end of designing for control are combinatorial abstracts like chess and go. No luck (other than who goes first), no variable setups, no asymmetric forces, fixed victory triggers, etc. Clearly, this style of game emphasizes player skills and knowledge - especially considering the vast decision spaces created by a game like chess or go. The skillful play lies in predicting and visualizing your way through this vast decision space.

The above emphasis on player "control" is much different I feel from the ethos surrounding the design of earlier editions. I don't think earlier versions of the game were intended to be taken as competitively as it has become. Yes, there have been GT's for a long time and people making min-maxed power lists forever. But that's a consequence of what the players are bringing and wanting out of the game rather than what the game itself was trying to do.

I think the ethos of older editions was far more interested in telling a story and creating "drama" and unexpected situations that resulted from the "chaos of war." No plan survives contact with the enemy, etc. People didn't play Orks back in 2nd edition because they wanted to be ultra competitive. They played them because Orks were hilarious and every other thing you did required rolling on some ridiculous table to see if some grotling disaster occurred.

This isn't to say that older editions lacked tactics, but rather that they had less control baked into the design. In 9th edition, high degrees of control push the game towards optimization. What's the optimal army list, the optimal deployment approach (given static objectives and increasing interest on symmetrical tables), the optimal firing order, etc. Like with combinatorial abstracts, there is a sense that there is a "solution" to any given situation.

In older editions, players were more along for a narrative, dramatic ride. You knew going into a game that *bad stuff* was going to randomly happen to you, and you just hoped a bit more bad stuff would happen to your opponent than to you. But to be sure there were tactics in the game, but these emanated from having to make the best choice you could under sub-optimal circumstances and in response to unforeseen events upsetting "the plan." It was a game of managing contingencies.

I agree with basically everything here, and it all matches up well with my first post in this thread (to summarize: I play WHFB 8th edition solo because less control, I play modern games against other players because both of us have more control).
Neither design is good or bad, just more suited for certain things imho. Playing against other players with the older ethos has always been a frustrating experience for me. Playing against other players with the new ethos has also been frustrating, but only because I play Chaos Space Marines
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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

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

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

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


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

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

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


You know, it's ironic, I just played my first game of 4th edition in a long time just last night.

And the biggest difference is LETHALITY. Deploying into terrain isn't mandatory - it does save you some losses, but you won't immediately be evaporated off the board wholesale. I played a Chimera mechanized company into foot-horde Orks, and both sides had more than half their lists left at the end of the game despite some fairly brutal combat in the middle of the board. I did lose but that's fine. The things that helped the problems you ascribe are:

1) Abstract terrain. Woods blocked line of sight (more than a few inches in). Being "behind" a wood actually helped you, rather than just being in it. Being behind a ruin helped you - just like 9th, except touching the base didn't immediately render your unit targetable (so you could deploy along the inside wall, then pop out.

2) Vehicle weapon arcs helped the Orks, and armor/armor facings helped the Imperial Guard.

3) The lethality was simply lower. A guard squad with 8 Lasguns firing could only shoot 12" if they moved and even at maximum output, you got 16 lasgun shots and a piddling amount of fire from your other weapons. Nowadays? Twice as many shots, you can move and shoot with no penalty, the wound table is less generous (wound T5 on 5s instead of 6s), you can charge after shooting rapid-fire weapons to do even more damage / finish people off, and the squad is cheaper (base squad of guardsmen is 60 points in 4th plus the sergeant actually costs points). A Chimera with 6 shots (Multi-Laser and Heavy Bolter) was a LOT of firepower for a dedicated transport.

4) Scoring at the end of the game, rather than progressive scoring, meant maneuver was more flexible. Instead of just blobbing onto objectives and staying there, squads could leave objectives to accomplish a mission, then return to it. Vehicles could, indeed, spend 2 turns moving 24" without shooting to get around terrain, and still have 4 more turns to participate in the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 13:49:17


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






^^^^ What Unit1126PLL said...

The growing lethality of the game is insidious and has a lot of impact on the play.

The mission design is also really a driver for strategy and tactics. With the current matched play missions and scoring, you're generally needing to contest points ASAP. It's a rush game for the most part, and in this situation spending an extra turn driving around terrain could be really costly if it means you cant contest a point that turn. With scoring at the end, you have much more leeway for when you push onto objectives.


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Scoring at the end also pushed for more deadly lists or unkillable lists. If you can just focus on killing your opponent and just need to stand on the points at the end to win the objective itself matters far less. Same if all you need to do is stand on the objective the entire game and survive.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Mezmorki wrote:
^^^^ What Unit1126PLL said...

The growing lethality of the game is insidious and has a lot of impact on the play.

The mission design is also really a driver for strategy and tactics. With the current matched play missions and scoring, you're generally needing to contest points ASAP. It's a rush game for the most part, and in this situation spending an extra turn driving around terrain could be really costly if it means you cant contest a point that turn. With scoring at the end, you have much more leeway for when you push onto objectives.



This is a misconception that gets some people into trouble. "If I don't push straight for objectives I will lose."

What ends up happening is they wind up making choices that get units killed - especially vs DE. You may not score, but you have an additional opportunity to respond before they score as well. As long as your opponent isn't dragging in 15 points and you're getting 5 or 10 then you still have an opportunity to turn the game.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 15:05:54


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Mezmorki wrote:
^^^^ What Unit1126PLL said...

The growing lethality of the game is insidious and has a lot of impact on the play.

The mission design is also really a driver for strategy and tactics. With the current matched play missions and scoring, you're generally needing to contest points ASAP. It's a rush game for the most part, and in this situation spending an extra turn driving around terrain could be really costly if it means you cant contest a point that turn. With scoring at the end, you have much more leeway for when you push onto objectives.

I second/third this

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 15:03:54


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Rihgu wrote:
Scoring at the end also pushed for more deadly lists or unkillable lists. If you can just focus on killing your opponent and just need to stand on the points at the end to win the objective itself matters far less. Same if all you need to do is stand on the objective the entire game and survive.


Right but if lethality is low enough that 50% of the opponent's army (roughly, could be 30-60%) is guaranteed to be alive no matter how killy you are, then you had better maneuver with those objectives in mind - or else lose the game to only 30% of the enemy force, because they got done what needed to be done and you didn't.

This gets back to the whole idea of "making it's points back". A unit should almost never make it's points back, and certainly NOT in one turn.

After all, armies are just collections of units, so if every unit needs to make its points back, then an entire army needs to make its points back. If that needs to happen ALL IN ONE TURN, well...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 15:10:23


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





I personally think the idea of "making it's points back" is a fallacy and not a standard to judge a unit by. Even if it does. It's all about impact on the game. If a 100 point unit of melta takes down a 200 chimera+unit inside in the back corner of the board nowhere near any objectives, sure the unit made it's points back but did not have an impact on the actual game.

What made the lethality between 4th and 5th vastly increase? Not sure if you have the ability to answer this, Unit, but maybe somebody in the thread does.
In 5th it was extremely common for my army to get blown away by guardsmen and especially guardsmen vets, and leman russes. Did Guard not have FRFSRF in 4th?
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Mezmorki wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m curious what others think!



I liked a lot of these things from the older editions, however they did have some serious problems. That being said, I would rather have seen them modified than removed personally. For example:\

1) OG Deep Striking was WAY too punishing for bad rolls. Oups I rolled bad, their goes 1/3rd of my 1000 point army, I guess I lose. Oh, I rolled 2" off the table, I guess my guys are too dumb to realize where the fight is and just walk over here. Nobody likes those situations. However, I think that the random element to Deep Strike was really good. If the rules changed to say loosing a model, or say, taking a MW on a roll of 1 if you Deep Strike into Terrain or something, I could see that still punishing a failed Deep Strike, but not being so game breaking.

2) Yeah, I miss this. Was another another way to make infantry more/les mobile too. Light Infantry like Scouts/Kroot got bonuses to moving through cover (I think there was an edition where Heavy Infantry like Terminators got reduced move through cover, but I can't recall for sure.)

3) I think I liked this rule best when it required a Ld check. (Not sure if it always did, but they way you've written I assume not.) However, I think it should be changed a bit. For instance, if there are two enemy units only 1 or two inches apart, you should be able to decided, where as if a melee unit is barreling down on you, you should have to test to shoot the big guns behind them. I think applying a range option to this would make sense. You have to shoot the closest enemy unit within 12", or you can shoot anything if there are none. This would add more to your comment about forcing movement as well.

4) Yeah, I actually agree here too, however if you played around with the effective range of charging, you'd basically have to re-balance everything. Personally, if I had to re-vamp the system, I'd go back to the only charge if you didn't shoot rule to represent them taking that time to keep running for their target and change the distance to the units M+D6, but then have them actually move up even if they failed the charge. It's always felt weird to me that it was an all or nothing thing.

5) I miss this too, it's not like real battles were "okay we'll fight for 5 hours and not a moment longer." (Unless of course a cease fire was declared or some such).

One other thing I would like to see back that I think would effect this would be the changing of ways to score VP. I like the concept they have of main objective with multiple side objectives, but it feels somewhat lacking. I'm not quite sure exactly what it is, but I feel like every mission is now "get the things" and either, "kill the dudes, or get the things more". When I look back at older missions, they were essentially the same thing as well, but for some reason, they felt more varied. I get that this is a better design for things like tournaments and such to make it even, but I think they should take a page out of their design philosophy for the new Kill Team and make wildly differing missions with varied win cons / deployments and use the secondary system to supplement it. You see a bit of this in the Crusade missions, but I think they could go way further. When I play my army, I know how I'm going to play it in nearly every game because they are so similar, but if the missions varied dramatically, you'd have to adjust your playstyle on the fly which I really miss having to do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 15:34:15


15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Guard did not have orders in 4th.

Squadrons did not exist in 4th.

Ordnance rules made vehicles that used them rare and powerful, and made their use a tactical decision rather than just "I blow you up with big gun because why not?"

Vehicles were less powerful.

Indirect fire cost points and didn't come stock.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: