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
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Rihgu wrote:
Did Guard not have FRFSRF in 4th?


Nope, 5th is where Orders started, and simultaneously Guardsmen got cheaper.

At this point I think Unit, Insectum, and Mezmorki have covered my thoughts pretty well, but I'll add one more thing: While it was a frustrating, negative play experience to sometimes flub deep strike and lose a unit, I find it regularly frustrating to be in the position where either a unit can't come down anywhere useful because it's screened out by magical 9" no-touch shields, or a unit with 12" or 18" range can still drop exactly where it wants to be and effortlessly obliterate a star unit with perfect reliability. There was some fuzziness to the old deep strike where you could decide how much risk you were willing to accept; the shift towards more deterministic mechanics brings along its own set of frustrations.

Oh, and I don't know that scoring at the end necessarily made for a better play experience. Daedalus is right in that that's why we got leafblower and gunline lists. But I do think 9th leans too far in the other direction. Mixing progressive and at-the-end scoring in a mission pack, so you can't optimize for one or the other, might be a better compromise- but then the tournament players start complaining that they get screwed by the mission dice roll.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I could see a mix of some progressive and some end-of-game even in the same mission.

Like controlling no-man's-land throughout the battle gets some points, but so does achieving a hard-fought breakthrough to get the one in the enemy's DZ at the last moment.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Most of the problems could be fixed with less lethality.

I like my games to be less lethal. For units to engage in firefights and resist for reinforcements, for meele to become a push between two forces.

Thats fixed at a 60% if you play a normal 9th list but just ignor all rerrolls and all bonuses to attacks, AP, to wound and to hit and just play with normal unit statlines and datasheets. Many characters lose their appeal of course but thats just a test to see how better 9th is with less lethality.

 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 us
Dakka Veteran






xRegarding scoring....

I've discussed this at length in prior threads, but I really dislike the matched play mission design in 9th. Every mission is essentially a minor variation on the same basic theme (progressive scoring each turn for holding control points, plus secondaries of your choosing). The missions aren't diverse enough, and I think it's important to have a diverse army list that can respond to a range of different mission objectives and needs. Any missions get boring when you play them over and over, so having a more fundamentally diverse pool is really important IMHO.

I'm 50% of the way through the mission designs for ProHammer. I catalogued all the mission objectives from past and current 40K editions and am coming up with a robust of way of, essentially, including most of them in the set. Missions are boiling down into 6 different archetypes - and essentially all the diversity of primary missions in say the 9th edition matched play missions fall into one archetype. There's an archetype for recon/board zone control missions, one for destroying (or defending) sets of certain types of objectives in a siege mission (e.g. pipelines or bunkers), one for searching for and recovering special assets, one or ambushes/breakthrough missions, and a retainer for more specialized one-off missions.

I'm also working on a way to structure the mission selection process similar to the Open War decks (which are pretty slick). There'd be a set of of primary missions/objective cards, which in turn might direct you to pull cards from other sets (e.g. deployment zones, special rules, etc.). Some of these missions would be asymmetric (one player as attacker or defender). There are about 6 core variations of control point missions depending on whether the scoring is progressive, end-of-game only, or threshold based (e.g. no turn limit, just a matter of getting to X-points first).

The other thing I've done with the mission design is that players ONLY consider scoring for secondary objectives in the event that players tie for primary objectives. This keeps the focus on the primary mission goal, but creates an interesting tension if it looks like neither player will accomplish the primary mission and you have to shift focus to considering secondary objectives. The ONLY secondary objectives are (a) kill the warlord (3 VP); (b) kill enemy forces (1-6 VPs depending on the percentage of total point value of units destroyed/neutralized); (c) keeping all enemies out of your deployment zone (3 VPs); (d) getting 1-3 of your own scoring models into the enemy deployment zone (1-3 VPs). These secondary objectives have been working super well so far when they've come up.

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





I think many people here need to be playing the beta Maelstrom rules. It feels like everyone is expecting the competitive missions to be a one size fits all and it will never be that. There are also missions in other books that have exactly what you guys are referencing:






   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Mezmorki wrote:
xRegarding scoring....

I've discussed this at length in prior threads, but I really dislike the matched play mission design in 9th. Every mission is essentially a minor variation on the same basic theme (progressive scoring each turn for holding control points, plus secondaries of your choosing). The missions aren't diverse enough, and I think it's important to have a diverse army list that can respond to a range of different mission objectives and needs. Any missions get boring when you play them over and over, so having a more fundamentally diverse pool is really important IMHO.

I'm also working on a way to structure the mission selection process similar to the Open War decks (which are pretty slick). There'd be a set of of primary missions/objective cards, which in turn might direct you to pull cards from other sets (e.g. deployment zones, special rules, etc.). Some of these missions would be asymmetric (one player as attacker or defender). There are about 6 core variations of control point missions depending on whether the scoring is progressive, end-of-game only, or threshold based (e.g. no turn limit, just a matter of getting to X-points first).

The other thing I've done with the mission design is that players ONLY consider scoring for secondary objectives in the event that players tie for primary objectives. This keeps the focus on the primary mission goal, but creates an interesting tension if it looks like neither player will accomplish the primary mission and you have to shift focus to considering secondary objectives. The ONLY secondary objectives are (a) kill the warlord (3 VP); (b) kill enemy forces (1-6 VPs depending on the percentage of total point value of units destroyed/neutralized); (c) keeping all enemies out of your deployment zone (3 VPs); (d) getting 1-3 of your own scoring models into the enemy deployment zone (1-3 VPs). These secondary objectives have been working super well so far when they've come up.


100% agree on the first point.

It's funny, I was just thinking about how I wish Night Fighting was still a thing and that it's crazy the in nearly infinite planetary biomes, we don't have some kind of weather effect system. Then I read this and remembered the open war decks are a thing. I should really pick those up.

Sometimes both armies aren't necessarily trying to achieve the same thing. So long as it's balanced, given each player a different primary objective could be interesting too. Then you could have the secondary's (while still taking a back seat) be a little more impactful that just being a tie breaker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think many people here need to be playing the beta Maelstrom rules. It feels like everyone is expecting the competitive missions to be a one size fits all and it will never be that. There are also missions in other books that have exactly what you guys are referencing:



That's Crusade though, which has always been a bit more flexible. I think they were referring more to Matched Play (I know I was).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 16:08:45


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







Yeah I was referring to pick up games.

Getting a crusade game here is more difficult.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Right, ok, then you would rate your happiness as increased if missions like that existed as part of the tournament rules so that when you got a pick up game they didn't shy away due to it being "something else".

It's certainly a difficult problem. Not everything like that will be balanced and it would be up to GW to codify it. Hmm.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 16:35:25


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Rihgu wrote:


What made the lethality between 4th and 5th vastly increase? Not sure if you have the ability to answer this, Unit, but maybe somebody in the thread does.
In 5th it was extremely common for my army to get blown away by guardsmen and especially guardsmen vets, and leman russes. Did Guard not have FRFSRF in 4th?
Unit mentioned vehicle squadrons, but I'm going to mention Sternguard for my specific experience. Never before in a Marine army were so many high AP weapons able to be concentrated. Among a number of armies the amount of high AP weapons increased.

The other thing that happened was a return to TLOS, which made hiding units from opposing firepower much harder. More firepower with less cover means higher lethality.

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 ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Right, ok, then you would rate your happiness as increased if missions like that existed as part of the tournament rules so that when you got a pick up game they didn't shy away due to it being "something else".

It's certainly a difficult problem. Not everything like that will be balanced and it would be up to GW to codify it. Hmm.




For me, yes.

I may be in the minority here, but I much prefer games that are not 100% balanced. I like them to be close-ish sometimes, but since the nature of codex releases make some armies stronger than others anyway and not everyone being able to afford every single unit, it's not like we're every dealing with a perfect system to begin with. If I wanted to play a game that was 100% balanced, I'd break out my chess set, and even then, I think it's technically 52/48 for 1st turn advantage.

For me, much of the fun of a wargame is dealing with unpredictable events and having to react on the fly to things you don't expect. I'm not sure how well this system could be implemented into 40k, but I really like the mission design philosophy in the new Kill Team. You have a set pool of units, but it's more than you would take on any given mission. When you learn the mission you are assigned, you then pick the force you think is best equipped to deal with it and can select from special equipment (separate from points) to aid in dealing with specific challenges you will find in this mission. This would certainly increase setup time before games and such, but I think the trade off would be well worth it if we could get more unique and interesting matches.

I don't remember every game that I ran around grabbing things a little faster than my opponent. I remember matches where a small force of my Space Marines ambushed an Ork Convoy twice it's points value under the cover of a dust storm and crippled their advance before falling back with minimal casualties.

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







The main thing I want, which comes from more than just missions, is a lack of solvability.

This gets to the core of the thread, so I'll write on it at more length:

I want the game to be unsolvable. Un-optimizable. When you build your army in 9th, you're considering how to take/contest midboard objectives, and building around certain secondaries. The competitive wisdom is to build around 2, and then flex the 3rd based on opponent.

This means that, at gametime, you simply execute on that plan: roll forwards to contest midboard objectives, execute secondary objectives based on your pre-planned outline. It's very algorithmic.

It's also very "Strategic" in a sense (if you accept that strategy is "anything that happens pre-game not on the board).

But it isn't very tactical.

I'm reminded of a question from GW's Middle Earth design Q&A at the 2019 NOVA convention:
"When will you stop making <mission type X> in the tournament packet because it makes <army type Y> bad?"

The designer replied, rather brilliantly:
"We put those missions in there specifically to disincentivize building <army type Y>. We saw <army type Y> as being strong in <mission type Q> and still pretty strong in <mission type Z> so we designed <mission type X> in an attempt to force <army type Y> from going all-in on that build and instead balance their force a little better - or be prepared to accept losses when they encounter <type X>."

I'm not direct quoting, I'm paraphrasing, but the point stands for itself I hope.

Furthermore, terrain, enemy army composition, enemy maneuver capability/capacity, etc. should make each game unique and make it very difficult to build an army that algorithmically solves its way to victory through a combination of pre-identified factors.

EDIT:
In some ways, Warhammer 40k 9th is a "WE GO" gametype, a collision of pre-constructed plans with not terribly much room for innovation or battle-management decisions. (in comparison to other games such as Chain of Command, where you may not even know your full Army List until you show up at the table and roll some dice beforehand to determine support point allocation).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/28 17:00:16


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

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


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

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


We did a lot of deepstriking back in the day. Especially near table edges. Balls of steel, man!
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Strg Alt wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

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


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

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


We did a lot of deepstriking back in the day. Especially near table edges. Balls of steel, man!
I saw people try it occasionally, but golly was the rate of failure high. Personally I never fielded Terminators without a Sergeant somewhere with a Teleport Homer.

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 ca
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.

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

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

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


I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

It just seems to me like setting a different standard for a game we've decided to like than for a game we've decided to hate (or at least dislike in its current state).

And to be fair to you, I may be doing that thing I sometimes do, where ALL negative comments end up being attributed to anyone who post A negative comment. Sorry if I did that- it's just hard to remember which negative comments are coming from whom- there are a fair number of them in this thread, and a fair number of threads with similar ratios of positive to negative, so if I messed up here, no misrepresentation intended.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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

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

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

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


I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

It just seems to me like setting a different standard for a game we've decided to like than for a game we've decided to hate (or at least dislike in its current state).

And to be fair to you, I may be doing that thing I sometimes do, where ALL negative comments end up being attributed to anyone who post A negative comment. Sorry if I did that- it's just hard to remember which negative comments are coming from whom- there are a fair number of them in this thread, and a fair number of threads with similar ratios of positive to negative, so if I messed up here, no misrepresentation intended.


I mean, the issue for me (to repeat my last few posts) is those are all pre-game algorithmic decisions.

Stratagems, auras, and chapter-tactics are pre-game decisions made that execute algorithmically on the tabletop. "Put my men in aura to make them shoot well. If threat is big, put a pre-planned stratagem on them. If threat is small and numerous, put stratagem on a different unit." Chapter tactics is literally army-wide, so there's exactly zero decision-making except "which chapter am I playing?" which has 0 interaction with your opponent (and therefore isn't an informed, tactical decision in the face of the enemy).

The only influence your opponent's maneuver, shooting, hell, even existence has on the decision in your example is simply "are they one big unit or lots of little units?" In fact, your example is precisely what my last post was talking about, where the decisions made are largely pregame and in-game play is just executing those pre-made strategies.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






PenitentJake wrote:

I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

I guess I don't see that as a double standard at all because the two things you're comparing feel vastly different. One is a product of risk-reward choice upon interaction with terrain incurring self-inflicted harm. The other appears to be "combo stacking" in order to harm the other player.

Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.

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 ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 DarkHound wrote:
You totally missed my point or you're being purposefully disingenuous. You can't plan for every result of every difficult terrain test. You also don't have infinite redundancy.

Yes, and...

It's a BAD thing if I spend 10 minutes making a plan for the turn, hit a 1/6 that bricks my movement (which I know will cascade into further failures), so I have to spend 10 minutes remeasuring and planning, only to hit another 1/36 to fail target priority at a critical point and have to spend 10 minutes recalculating my shooting phase.

How is this any different than if you low roll an attack sequence, have a psychic power fail or fail a charge? The issue seems to have more to do with your own slow planning than it does with the game.

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

Why is this bad? Is the only goal to win the game and have nothing go wrong?
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher. I swear I'm not bitter. XD

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 18:51:35


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







Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 18:48:09


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Tawnis wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher.


TBF armies at that point in time with 200 + models didn't or shouldn't really have cared for most units beeing out of sightline anyways for a singular blast....

Otoh if you fielded a lot of arty as some armies could then yeah that became a bit of a slog.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Tawnis wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher.


I get that it was onerous but this isn't a bad thing.

Spreading out like that has genuine on-table tactical consequences (for example, easier to brush terrain so your unit slows down, wider frontage to get contacted and locked up by enemy combat units so they can't be shot, models being out of range, etc. etc.).

People who did it routinely often didn't think about the other ramifications of it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Insectum7 wrote:The other thing that happened was a return to TLOS, which made hiding units from opposing firepower much harder. More firepower with less cover means higher lethality.


Plus the change to the mechanics of cover. The old cover system meant that spamming high-AP firepower couldn't invalidate saves; in 5th Ed if you were in ruins you got your 4+ against all those plasma guns and lascannons that would otherwise splatter your Marines, and Guard could actually get saves against bolters. +1 to your save is a lot less impactful.

PenitentJake wrote:I don't disagree with the sentiment. What bothers me is the double standard.

Randomly rolling a one and getting wiped out or stuck is "tactics"

But stacking and aura, a strat and a chapter tactic in order to ensure success against a particularly tough unit vs spreading those things around to take out more than one lesser unit is... Unnecessary bloat and gak and ruining the game.

It just seems to me like setting a different standard for a game we've decided to like than for a game we've decided to hate (or at least dislike in its current state).


Like the other guys said, the difference is that stacking an aura, a strat, and a chapter tactic is all a pre-game decision. Those are not an emergent combo that suddenly arises during gameplay. There's little decision-making involved- and usually, the best strategy is to stack those on your star unit(s), so spreading them out is a non-option to begin with. You don't spend CP to use shoot-twice on your chaff, you spend it to shoot-twice on the unit you've supercharged through auras and abilities.

Consider instead if flanking the enemy to establish crossfire gave you a bonus on your attack to ensure success against a particularly tough unit. Then that power amplification would be based on maneuver, punishing an opponent who was overly aggressive with their units but also potentially exposing you to greater risk if you're overextended. That would represent a moment-to-moment decision based on the current battlefield state (like how choosing whether to enter terrain that might immobilize you represents a tactical decision), rather than executing a pre-planned set of combos to maximize damage output.

   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.


While part of me does miss that too, as well as it being more thematic, boy do I sure NOT miss the guy who had 200+ infantry and had to make sure they were all exactly 2" apart because I had a single freaking missile launcher.


I get that it was onerous but this isn't a bad thing.

Spreading out like that has genuine on-table tactical consequences (for example, easier to brush terrain so your unit slows down, wider frontage to get contacted and locked up by enemy combat units so they can't be shot, models being out of range, etc. etc.).

People who did it routinely often didn't think about the other ramifications of it.


That's true. I didn't mind at all when playing at home with unlimited time, (as I said I loved how much more thematic it was) but when you only have a few hours to get in a game after work at a FLGS before closing time, it really sucked.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/28 18:56:18


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







 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 catbarf wrote:


Plus the change to the mechanics of cover. The old cover system meant that spamming high-AP firepower couldn't invalidate saves; in 5th Ed if you were in ruins you got your 4+ against all those plasma guns and lascannons that would otherwise splatter your Marines, and Guard could actually get saves against bolters. +1 to your save is a lot less impactful.


I actually much prefer cover this way TBH. If these anti-tanks weapons can pierce your ceramite armour, why can't they do so to the brick wall your crouching behind? Just because your armor can save you from small arms fire, cover does nothing? I personally house ruled cover modifying saves very similar to how it does now since all the way back in 3rd.

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







 Tawnis wrote:


That's true. I didn't mind at all when playing at home with unlimited time, (as I said I loved how much more thematic it was) but when you only have a few hours to get in a game after work at a FLGS before closing time, it really sucked.


Play a smaller game (say, 500-750 pts) where people could bring 60 models instead of 200
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Terrain wasn't that "tactical", at least not when it came to vehicles as many of them had ways to negate it. And the ones that didn't either sucked or could just sit at the other side of the map and bombard you.

Same with Deep Strike, no one used it unless they had the means to negate it, either with longer ranged weapons, drop pods or homing beacons.

I mean, I understand the potential for tactical play was there in the rulebook, but the codexes either had ways to ignore the rulebook or were bad because everyone else could ignore the rulebook, turning what on paper would be tactical decisions into pregame list-building decisions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 19:02:11


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Tawnis wrote:
 catbarf wrote:


Plus the change to the mechanics of cover. The old cover system meant that spamming high-AP firepower couldn't invalidate saves; in 5th Ed if you were in ruins you got your 4+ against all those plasma guns and lascannons that would otherwise splatter your Marines, and Guard could actually get saves against bolters. +1 to your save is a lot less impactful.


I actually much prefer cover this way TBH. If these anti-tanks weapons can pierce your ceramite armour, why can't they do so to the brick wall your crouching behind? Just because your armor can save you from small arms fire, cover does nothing? I personally house ruled cover modifying saves very similar to how it does now since all the way back in 3rd.


The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.


Well yeah, you're not facing a different army, just a different facet of it. They are meant to modify the army to emphasize their flavour/feel not change them completely. If Salamanders have a buff to their flamers, you may see them run more troops with that as appose to Imperial fists that would prefer gunlines because they are better with bolters. That's what I mean.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Did y'all not read what I wrote?

Let's say I'm playing SoB.

Some units (Battle Conclaves, Ministorum Priests, PE's) don't get <Order>

Now if I'm up against SM, and there are 2 units of Tacticals in the open, one in Cover, and unit of Gravis armoured troops in the open and one in cover. I mean, it seems smart to send the priest with my Arcos against a harder target- especially since I'll have the option of dropping Extremis Trigger Word (strat).

If I choose to go at the the tacticals in the open with a unit of 5 DCA's without a priest, what if I don't wipe out the tacticals, and they crush my DCA's and go on to score the game winning objective? I mean, it seems smart to send the priest with my Arcos against a harder target- especially since I'll have the option of dropping Extremis Trigger Word (strat) if the target is particularly hard, or particularly important to kill before they can score the objective they're holding. On the other hand, I could have sent the arcos with the DCA's and priest, which probably would get the job done, with the bonus that I may not even need the Trigger Word, thereby preserving my ability to say, Deadly Descent when I DS my Seraphim on the following turn.

in what universe was that a) a pregame decision (Unit) or b) not risk vs. reward (Insectum)?

As for aura bunching (Insectum), most 9th ed dexes buff a single unit in aura range, not EVERY unit in aura range (that was an 8th ed thing, and for the most part, it is being changed as new dexes drop).

Blast weapons in 9th, with minimum hits based on enemy unit size are still frightening to a dude who takes a unit of 10+ in order to maximize the impact of the aura buff. Perhaps not "Terrifying" in the same way as in the example you cite- but again, funny how you'll champion lethality in a version of the game you like and spit roast 9th because it's too lethal. I mean, I get it- it's a case of one unit being particularly lethal vs. most units being more lethal than expected... But then does that mean internal balance (another common complaint) is off in the version you prefer, and more consistent in 9th?

The point is that I can subject any version of the game to a similar degree of scrutiny to which 9th is frequently subjected, and I will find it just as problematic.

As for other games, their mechanics may very well be more resilient to scrutiny than GW products- my issue with them isn't mechanics. It's models.

Both Dust and Chain of Command are widely praised for their mechanics, and honestly, I don't even doubt that they are fabulous games. But I looked up both online yesterday just for fun.

I found 3 units for Dust that were interesting enough for me to put the effort into building and painting- there were some things that looked kinda sentinel/ dreadish; there was a unit of dudes with bat wings and there were some werewolves. Everything else bored me to tears.

In Chain of Command? Not a single model interested me. Not one.

And at that point, it doesn't really matter (to me, based on what I'm looking for in a game) how inexpensive the product is compared to GW or how much better the game may or may not be.

Edit: Improved the example of 9th ed tactics.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/28 19:16:22


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: