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.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Don't let these foggies whine and moan about tactics to you OP

I will outline the advantages and disadvantages to the game for ya.

40k takes a bit of time to learn but once you have you will find the game promotes you thinking ahead of the current gameplay and figuring out where you want to be and how before you oponnent does.

You will learn through your rules can in certain ways be more effective than others (some armies will get advantages from shooting certain types of guns at certain enemies ect ect.)

You will develop preferences and game play styles which work well for you.

You will learn not every enemy may be fought the same way

and lastly you will eventually enjoy the game if you picked an army you truly identify with (I suggest before investing in an army to read over it's codex 'main rulebook' and in the first pages you will see an entry which says "why buy a ____ army. I will tell you a bit about them and try and see yourself enjoying the qualities told you there)
---------------------------------

The problems with 40k are the ones everyone are voicing to you but I encourage you to think about this like a other games you might have played. First off 40k isn't chess, it isn't 100% fair certain armies were produced years ago and are going to eventually be updated but because 40k does a "power creep" you might find your army isn't as powerful persay as the 'flavor of the month'. I am playing one of the oldest codexes in 40k and have beaten brand new armies it all comes down to ... you guessed it tactics.

Certain armies can avoid using tactics in place of obscure rules or debating. this is something indigenous to all war gamers though so it shouldn't demoralize you.

the main issue I would caution you about is make sure you want to take 40k seriously because it's a hobby you can get into pretty cheaply but getting a formiddable army is never cheap no matter the resoruce. I've spent over 1.3k in my army over the years. my best suggest is buy small and look for deals online and through ebay, don't rush your collection and treat it like a hobby. and if nothing else MAKE SURE THE ARMY YOU PICK IS THE ONE YOU ARE SURE YOU WANT. I have seen more people spend hundreds of dollars to end up hating how the army plays after months of using them.

--------------------------------------

40k is a game i find myself thinking constantly finding a smart blend of rules, tactics and knowing your foe produces very satisfying games with just enough randomness to never get dull IMO. I highly advise you go to a local game store and ask how you could observe a game played and do so. everyone posting here hates the game... they are going to do everything they can to say how awful it is, how the company just wants your money and yadda yadda yadda. ifyou want the entertainment and challenge of playing in a war game with cool sci-fi stories, painting and modeling with an admiration for what your army represents then this game is most certainly one you should try.

I enjoy and admire your enthusiasm. I really do, no sarcasm here.

Unfortunately, what you equate to tactics has more to do with the sheer amount of duplicate unit/statistic combinations, the simple fact that every few years or so they change the nature of the rules necessitating a change in your play style and less to do with a challenging rules system.

It must be pointed out that many 40k players enjoy this aspect. Claiming that it keeps things from being stale. Personally, I would rather have a different way to keep things fresh than changing rules necessitating a $100 additional purchase to keep my dreams alive instead of an adjustment in real tactics. There isn't anything evil in this, but comes across a rather ham-fisted.

Many players of 40k can survive without adjusting their army or play style as long as the competition remains at a lower level. It is very difficult to beat a really good player with a newer army codex or one in which the strength/nature of a faction is amplified by a new rules set.. The key is always cracking the code and discovering the new advantage.

I personally believe these things do not make for an enjoyable game, but then again, I've always played Vanillarines since the beginning even at tournaments.

This point of view can be controversial, however...

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Don't let these foggies whine and moan about tactics to you OP

I will outline the advantages and disadvantages to the game for ya.

40k takes a bit of time to learn but once you have you will find the game promotes you thinking ahead of the current gameplay and figuring out where you want to be and how before you oponnent does.

You will learn through your rules can in certain ways be more effective than others (some armies will get advantages from shooting certain types of guns at certain enemies ect ect.)

You will develop preferences and game play styles which work well for you.

You will learn not every enemy may be fought the same way

and lastly you will eventually enjoy the game if you picked an army you truly identify with (I suggest before investing in an army to read over it's codex 'main rulebook' and in the first pages you will see an entry which says "why buy a ____ army. I will tell you a bit about them and try and see yourself enjoying the qualities told you there)
---------------------------------

The problems with 40k are the ones everyone are voicing to you but I encourage you to think about this like a other games you might have played. First off 40k isn't chess, it isn't 100% fair certain armies were produced years ago and are going to eventually be updated but because 40k does a "power creep" you might find your army isn't as powerful persay as the 'flavor of the month'. I am playing one of the oldest codexes in 40k and have beaten brand new armies it all comes down to ... you guessed it tactics.

Certain armies can avoid using tactics in place of obscure rules or debating. this is something indigenous to all war gamers though so it shouldn't demoralize you.

the main issue I would caution you about is make sure you want to take 40k seriously because it's a hobby you can get into pretty cheaply but getting a formiddable army is never cheap no matter the resoruce. I've spent over 1.3k in my army over the years. my best suggest is buy small and look for deals online and through ebay, don't rush your collection and treat it like a hobby. and if nothing else MAKE SURE THE ARMY YOU PICK IS THE ONE YOU ARE SURE YOU WANT. I have seen more people spend hundreds of dollars to end up hating how the army plays after months of using them.

--------------------------------------

40k is a game i find myself thinking constantly finding a smart blend of rules, tactics and knowing your foe produces very satisfying games with just enough randomness to never get dull IMO. I highly advise you go to a local game store and ask how you could observe a game played and do so. everyone posting here hates the game... they are going to do everything they can to say how awful it is, how the company just wants your money and yadda yadda yadda. ifyou want the entertainment and challenge of playing in a war game with cool sci-fi stories, painting and modeling with an admiration for what your army represents then this game is most certainly one you should try.

I too get this feeling the people posting here about how terrible the game is actually hate the game and thats terrible. telling people something is terrible when thats your opinion isnt cool.


Secondly. There are tactics and stratagy everwhere in 40k, absofugginlutly everywhere. From pick up games to tournaments everything you choose to do is either a stratigic choice or a tactical choice. Tournament coming up, and you dont wanna think much? Bring that super awesome IG leafblower list (thats a stratigic choice btw. Its one of overwhelming power giving less options for an enemy to respond to your threat) When the game gets going, how do you deploy? if you go first, this is stategic so you can get a battle plan ready. Hiding behind those Aegis lines? strategy, its to help you live from any incoming fire you receive. If you go second, you can still deploy strategicly but you also deploy with some tactics, you want these melta vets to deploy over on this side cause thats where his landraider is so you can shoot it. Tactic. Game starts and all you need to do is point your troopers and roll some dice? which troopers fire at what model? that requires tactics. Cause if your plasma vets are shooting at the landraider your using poor tactics. But if you WAIT for your medusa's or melta vets (by the way, taking those melta/plasma vets and medusas is a stratigic and tactical desicion, as you could easily have taken hydras and bassalisks or drop troops, or insert hundreds of other things here) to open the land raider, then you shoot the terminaters inside, thats a tactical and strategic choice.

Dont think because you shut your fuggin brain off that your no longer using tactics and statagy, its just that you have used them alot and you know what it is you do with them. When things become second nature you just notice them less. they are still there. New players dont know all this so it takes time to learn it, are those the only tactical and stategic options? HECK NO. especially if you follow the rules, apply mysterious terrein, and use other peices of terrien, especially LOS blocking peices and other impassable/ fun peaces.

And if you have a group of friends that just throws together smaller point games, or less "ZOMG I CRUSH YOU TURN 1 SHOOTING LOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLO" Lists, then the game can be incrediably strategic and tactical and fun. With 6th edition i have had maybe 1 game out of my 35+ games end on turn 4. nothing sooner then 4, every other game ends on 5-7 (average is actually 6) and most have been down to the wire, skin of your teeth hope to god my troops can survive his last volley of shots and i can pull off the win in the last second. Most games have ended with a couple points difference most the time, even if the game ended up a massacure in eithers favor.

The only rule i think is kinda hard for a person going second is First blood, that one is pretty easy for a shooting army to achieve first.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, it's not that 40k has NO tactics, it's that its tactical depth is really shallow. It's not so shallow that someone who has never played before has an even chance of beating a veteran, but once you've played a dozen games or so, and learn to show up with a netlist, you're already getting to the point where player skill has now started to become a controlled variable.

A lot of games are like that, though. In fact I'd argue that most games are like that except Chess or Go.

I appericate people trying to be less negative toward my post and maybe realizing the negativity to vent your own frustration to someone who could actually end up loving the game for it's good merits isn't ideal. So thanks everyone for being civil about my post I hope more people will sign the praise of the game


For example here are some tactical decisions I learned about Orks as I started playing them

Sometimes determining the order of gunshots can make a huge difference tactically on what to do to the enemy.

Vehicles are nearly immune to certain styles of damage but they are more vulnerable than squads of infantry in other ways.

It isn't always smart to just blindly rush toward the enemy eager to assualt, and if you are be mindful you aren't getting too close and encouraging they to charge you instead.

When facing a superior unit with initiative and many attacks they are very dangerous and MUST be softened with shooting because of squad sizes

Sometimes it isn't about killing the enemy it's about keeping them locked the rest of the game in Close combat

Using Close combat as a shield against shooting is preferable especially against armies who excel at shooting or are weak against assualt.

Just because you can get in base to base contact doesn't mean you should try to suround the enemy with your troops and attempt to cut off retreats

the list could go on and I am only stating some very fundamental things here... i always try to learn when i play the game and it never feels the same to me each match my enemies want to beat me. I have many victories in 6th and only 2 known losses since it's started. Even when i win or lose i always try to learn something new about combat. how to best deal with aggervating artillery, how to capture that distant objective what to do against that landraider which is immune to my damn army...

It all depends on what you define as tactical.

To me, that just means making choices that impact the result of the game.

Which means that almost every game is tactical.

It's just a matter of taste. Some love warmachine, because you can execute well thought-out plans that give the enemy no (or minimal) chance of escape, and win the game in a single round. Others love games with alternating activations because they get a chance to respond to or interrupt someone's plans. Games like 40K are rarely decided in a single round, especially if you keep your eyes on the prize (objectives) which in turn means that you can continue to make choices that will impact the game for a longer period of time. Some would say that makes it more tactical than Warmachine.

It's useless to try and rank "tacticalness." Instead just decide what sort of game you like.

Ailaros wrote:Well, it's not that 40k has NO tactics, it's that its tactical depth is really shallow. It's not so shallow that someone who has never played before has an even chance of beating a veteran, but once you've played a dozen games or so, and learn to show up with a netlist, you're already getting to the point where player skill has now started to become a controlled variable.

This is demonstrably false.

Brian wrote:A lot of games are like that, though. In fact I'd argue that most games are like that except Chess or Go.

Kaldor wrote:It all depends on what you define as tactical.

Yeah, and I suppose this is the problem. We're all having a tough time agreeing on what this word even means. If all it means is that the player has any opportunities at all, then sure, 40k is a plenty tactical game. If it means that players can make subtle variations on their decisions in order to gain an advantage, then 40k certainly isn't - the mechanics of the game are just too coarse to allow for this. As said before, what's the difference between decisions that are tactics, and decisions that are just micromanagement, or things that create the illusion of player control without doing much to affect the end results?

Kaldor wrote:This is demonstrably false.

Feel free to demonstrate. I look forward to rigorous data collected from several trials of a controlled experiment soon.

 Ailaros wrote:
Feel free to demonstrate. I look forward to rigorous data collected from several trials of a controlled experiment soon.

I can't be bothered, but anyone that can be bothered can simply look up tournament results. They'll see that people consistently score similar positions across multiple events, indicating that skill is consistently a significant deciding factor in who wins games.

Non-sequitur. The same people winning more than one tournament could prove anything.

I mean, if I made the prediction that the players who most appeased the spirits of the invisible unicorn gods were those who placed best at tournaments, would the fact that some people consistently place well in tournaments prove the existence of invisible unicorn gods?

No.

 Ailaros wrote:
Non-sequitur. The same people winning more than one tournament could prove anything.

It could.

But I think we both know what it's most likely to indicate.

That those persons all play Grey Knights and Necrons?

BlaxicanX wrote:
That those persons all play Grey Knights and Necrons?

Which would be valid if there was an even rotation of all GK or Necron players across a spread of events...

Kaldor wrote:But I think we both know what it's most likely to indicate.

Ailaros wrote:The same people winning more than one tournament could prove anything.

 Ailaros wrote:
Non-sequitur. The same people winning more than one tournament could prove anything.

Except that's not true at all. The same person winning two tournaments could easily be luck. The same person winning ten tournaments is a lot harder to explain by luck alone. Eventually you're forced to conclude that "they won because of skill" is more likely than "they won because of absurdly unlikely luck". You can't prove it 100%, but eventually "it's all luck" ceases to be a plausible explanation.

That would only be the case if everyone used the same list, imo, and fought the same people.

I've seen people win consecutively just by virtue of the fact that they had an airtight WAAC list and super hot dice, three, even four times in a row.

When has anyone ever won 10 tournaments, though? Or even or 6, consecutively? 3 or 4?

List building is part of being good at 40k.

And it's not just one person winning a couple tournaments, it's that you consistently see the same people doing well. It's just way too much of a trend to be plausibly explained by luck alone.

90% of list building is done by just looking at other peoples' lists. It isn't that difficult to min-max stuff.

40k is not a particularly tactically engaging game, especially in 6th edition. It's one of the main reasons I've given up on 40k for now. If you're looking for something to be tactically engaging and immersive. Essentially, 40k has a high floor with its convoluted and poorly written ruleset, and a low ceiling once you understand the basics.

That doesn't necessarily make a bad game, but it's an appeal that is not aimed at me (or you, OP, I would imagine). You play 40k to roll lots of dice and watch big things happen. It's kind of like a Michael Bay movie in miniature format, but not nearly as insulting.

I'd recommend you try something like Infinity if you want something that'll really push you to think in the moment.

With how much I consider GW incompetent in rules writing department, I think the underestimation of 40k goes too far sometimes. In 5th edition, the more we went by the book with the terrain the more balanced and tactical it was getting, It was 25% with at least one large LoS blocking piece, we used 2 sometimes (never exceeding 25% and still having place for forests or small pieces though) and not only there was enough tactical play but for example mr. Cruddace Tyranids instantly seemed more effective. Those rules are written as a whole and this is how they should be judged, correctly aplied by the book page by page.

Now looking at 6th, I can only guess that if you really placed terrain by the book so d3 pieces for each 2', the game would get tactical and even things like assault or infiltrate nerf should become less of an issue (I haven't tried with that much terrain yet). While GW suck at balancing the game and happen to shamelessly write rules to sell you models, they are also experienced game designers after all, I dislike 6th edition for many reasons but it's still not candyland (I don't know the game but from what I understand it's a total luckfest) or checkers - the core game is still a tactical wargame.

I also think that the new micromanagment (wound allocation) is a tactical change, making formations matter more. It's not much but still.

As for gunlines, maybe those are not that tactical but their presence is good, just because dealing with them might get tactical and they add to the variety of possible encounters, positively impacting the strategy element. Not to mention gunlines popularity might be a consequence of too scarce or wrong type of terrain generaly used, only a guess though.

As tactical I understand utilising movement, terrain and positioning to give you an advantage over your opponent, reacting to his actions while executing your strategic plan, target priority, synchronising attacks, synergy whatever that means etc. Those are only my quick conotations though, I'm not sure for example where to put deployment is it strategy or tactics.

I'm not saying that 6th edition is a good ruleset, they spoil it with excessive randomness, lack of balance, forcing cheap cinematics etc and there is a lot to improve in tactical possibilities department (top of my head would be 2nd edition like overwatch) but I disagree that the game is not tactical or only little. After all for example games like Close Combat which try to simulate the real battle are not that compicated either, SMG goes here, panzerschreck goes there, don't send the tank between buildngs alone, utilise cover, choose right spots for your supression teams, don't let enemy to separate and outgun your units at any place. Medieval battles is ussualy rock paper scissors, outflanking, synchronising attacks and terrain ofc. Tactics is generaly not that hard in the end, I assume that most people here play numerous wargames, boardgames, PC strategies so it's even easier for them and the requirements are high, also it's hard for a realistic or quasi-realistic game to be as challenging as chess for example.

Warhammer 40k is not a Low brow Tactical Beer and Preztle Game
It's a High brow Wine and Cheese Game

Sammer wrote:
I really appreciate everyone's feedback. You've basically confirmed my impression of the game. It's a shame they couldn't create a more refined and balanced tactical experience considering how long this game has been in production and still maintain the beer-and-pretzel fun factor for casual game play. Oh well, I guess no game is perfect, and there's definitely much more to this game than just the tactical element. For now, I think I'll just be in a holding pattern until the new Tau Codex is released, and hopefully, it'll give me the little push I need to overlook the game's short-comings and start up a trust fund for Games Workshop.

Thanks Gents,

Sammer

The game has gone through a LOT of significant change in its development. I've gotten back into it only recently after playing 2nd edition 15+ years ago. The first edition of the game was Very rules heavy, rpg, [overly] complex, tacticalish (I mean, you purchased and programmed firing algorithms into the marines combat robots!). Second edition was a strong simplification of 1st, remaining a -very- tactical game with a simple but flexible rule set that allowed for a much larger number of circumstances and outcomes than currently present. Then in '99 or 2000 when they went to 3rd edition, the game changed forms and has been evolving in its third major directionsince. So, as the game has really shifted significantly several times in its history, it could really be viewed as having a much shorter development time than its full existence.

Ailaros wrote:The same people winning more than one tournament could prove anything.

Peregrine wrote:Eventually you're forced to conclude that "they won because of skill"

Ailaros wrote:I look forward to rigorous data collected from several trials of a controlled experiment soon.

... or some actual deduction, whatever. Argument by assertion isn't terribly effective.

 Ailaros wrote:
Argument by assertion isn't terribly effective.

It's your unsupported assertion that luck is the only significant deciding factor in who wins games that we take issue with.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Argument by assertion isn't terribly effective.

It's your unsupported assertion that luck is the only significant deciding factor in who wins games that we take issue with.

It's still a predominantly deciding factor. I don't think anyone's actually said "luck is the only factor present in determining if one wins a game of 40k". Obviously, if I build a list of nothing but unupgraded IG infantry squads, and then never shoot a single squad at any of my opponents, well, of course I'm not going to win the game. At the same time though, I've seen too many games be irrevocably hijacked to the point of a deterministic outcome by a single (granted, pivotal) event that occurs so far off the bell curve to be believed. For example, glancing to death a Leman Russ with a single Psyfleman hitting it on its front armor. That's not skill. That's just simply errant probability.

@Ailaros I think you are stretching it, for sure the same people consistently winning/ finishing high in tournaments is more of a proof that skill decides games than your claim that the game has dice so luck is the most important factor. There is that rare game decided by random event but still it's raher an exception than the norm, will be more common in 6th thanks to all new dice but still not a significant number, imo. I saw skill being the most important factor in games much more random than 40k.

It would be more tactical if people did away with constant close combat.

The game has strategy, but at varying levels. Some models and combinations are obviously more powerful than others. Behind the fluff of the game lies a heavy hand of statistics. You only want to use your time and energy engaging things you can kill. It is important to know those things. You learn that by understanding the tactics of weapon use, target selection, terrain impact, etc.

That said....this game is not Flames of War where range, cover, facing, etc play as important of a role in fighting and dying. If you want a more tactical feeling Games Workshop game I suggest Warhammer Fantasy at least in its shooting mechanics.

The things you guys are saying make 40k a tactically sound game are things that exist in all wargames. Saying some units counter others, or terrain and dead vehicles change the battlefield, or choosing what fires at what aren't really valid defenses of the deepness of the game. All wargames have these things, but other companies make games that are much more balanced and give you more/deeper tactical options. 40k is fun and fluffy. Its higher level competitiveness mostly revolves around creating game breaking lists.

orkybenji wrote:
, but other companies make games that are much more balanced and give you more/deeper tactical options

Prove it. Demonstrate these much more balanced with more/deeper tactical option games.

I think 40k is very tactically viable, and think the problem is most players under populate the table with terrain, some torniments are notorious for it opting for 1 forost 1 ruin and 1 hill in each quarter :0.

The big army's making the lack of terain even worse when they can begin the obliteration of units in turn one.
another thing I have notice is the game gets far more thaght full on larger tables, when your heavy weapons cant reach most of the table without moving into more favorable positions.

orkybenji wrote:
The things you guys are saying make 40k a tactically sound game are things that exist in all wargames. Saying some units counter others, or terrain and dead vehicles change the battlefield, or choosing what fires at what aren't really valid defenses of the deepness of the game. All wargames have these things, but other companies make games that are much more balanced and give you more/deeper tactical options. 40k is fun and fluffy. Its higher level competitiveness mostly revolves around creating game breaking lists.

The problem is that you're using a word with no definition.

I could make a strong case for Monopoly or Risk being more tactical than Flames of War or Infinity. Because there is no set definition of what constitutes a tactical game, or what tactical 'depth' means.

Basically, what I want is for you to re-write your post, but define the highlighted words.