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.

the_scotsman wrote:
There are plenty of potential tactical responses to a maneuver like that, they just apparently weren't the options you had on the table at that time. in 9th ed, you could even ensure that the unit you don't want tied up dies, a process that you have some control over - by removing models from the middle of the squad, you can cause additional casualties by breaking coherency.

Not on the vehicle he used it on (but you're right if he used the stratagem correctly). But don't forget he can choose to only swing with one model in a unit, which is almost guaranteed not to kill more than 1 of anything (and guarantee an autopass of morale). Plus, the thing you suggest with morale isn't a tactic. It's gamey. There's a difference between a flanking maneuver / enfilade fire / appropriate use of suppression and then gaming the system to lose half your unit even when they only killed one model. Yes it's "tactics" but it isn't fulfilling, and definitely doesn't feel like a real war. "Wow, boss, half that unit routed after the BT killed one ork, thank goodness or else we'd be in big trouble..." ??????

Gamey interactions don't feel tactical, even if they are """tactics"""

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's much easier to have pre-game stuff determine games these days simply because there's much more to memorize that has an impact and can't be played around with counterplay.

This is exactly what I was getting at.

@the_scotsman

I mean, compare the number of unit entries and the number of weapon profiles in the 5th edition space marine codex vs 9th. There are orders of magnitude more stuff (and their interactions) to keep track of now. And this isn't even accounting for the pile on from stratagems, relics, chapter traits, tactical faction objectives, etc. - which has a multiplying effect on all of it.

I totally agree with you that knowledge of all of this and when to apply it are frequently tactical considerations. But this tactical expertise is not nearly as much about physical board positioning and maneuvering than it is about having an encyclopedic knowledge of all of these possible non-physical non-spatial options and when to execute them.

Older editions were predicated on the notion that what you saw on the table - the units with their wargear and special abilities - was all that you had to work with and contend with. There wasn't this whole other layer of play (command phase) involved that suddenly changed the capabilities of unit A from X into Y.

Perhaps the argument can me made that the game being more complex now is inherently more "deep" ... but I don't automatically subscribe that thinking. I tend to view complexity as something that gets in the way of depth of obfuscating choices, requiring more pre-game knowledge, and/or just adding noise to the experience. Chess, Go, and other abstract games are deep because their simplicity allows for engagement with complex and emergent spatial strategies. Would adding random die rolls to chess, or giving white pieces each a certain set of powers different from black pieces, or having special hand of power cards you could play make the game deeper? In theory, perhaps it could - but it makes depth of play significantly harder to access, and in practical terms is just adding chaos to what was otherwise pure tactics and strategy.

Or, alternatively, look at the dark eldar codex, where you have an order of magnitude fewer options available to you.

Go figure, it looks like this is mostly a space marine problem my dude.

I think there are two threads at work here:

#1 - The influence of stratagems changing the nature of the game such that "what you see is not necessarily what you get" anymore.

And,

#2 - The overall explosion in the quantity of the "stuff" to be considered, whether it's unit types, weapon types, stratagems, special rules, etc.

FWIW, #1 I feel is skewing the game away from physical table-level tactics and towards a CP management game. CPs routinely can undermine physical decisions and render them less impactful. It's changed the feeling of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
There are plenty of potential tactical responses to a maneuver like that, they just apparently weren't the options you had on the table at that time. in 9th ed, you could even ensure that the unit you don't want tied up dies, a process that you have some control over - by removing models from the middle of the squad, you can cause additional casualties by breaking coherency.

Not on the vehicle he used it on (but you're right if he used the stratagem correctly). But don't forget he can choose to only swing with one model in a unit, which is almost guaranteed not to kill more than 1 of anything (and guarantee an autopass of morale). Plus, the thing you suggest with morale isn't a tactic. It's gamey. There's a difference between a flanking maneuver / enfilade fire / appropriate use of suppression and then gaming the system to lose half your unit even when they only killed one model. Yes it's "tactics" but it isn't fulfilling, and definitely doesn't feel like a real war. "Wow, boss, half that unit routed after the BT killed one ork, thank goodness or else we'd be in big trouble..." ??????

Gamey interactions don't feel tactical, even if they are """tactics"""

You have invented a rule.

"FIGHT

When a unit is selected to fight, it first piles in, then the models in the unit must make attacks."

Also, the added ridiculousness of arguing that it DOESN'T feel like an accurate war when your units are unable to simply turn and run away from a melee unit without taking any kind of additional punishment for doing so....mwah. Chef's kiss for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I think there are two threads at work here:

#1 - The influence of stratagems changing the nature of the game such that "what you see is not necessarily what you get" anymore.

And,

#2 - The overall explosion in the quantity of the "stuff" to be considered, whether it's unit types, weapon types, stratagems, special rules, etc.

FWIW, #1 I feel is skewing the game away from physical table-level tactics and towards a CP management game. CPs routinely can undermine physical decisions and render them less impactful. It's changed the feeling of the game.

Sure, if you just pretend that WYSIWYG was a universal, eternally abided by rule in earlier editions and they weren't chockablock full of tons and tons and tons and tons of individual model-level invisible upgrades that nearly anything could have.

I could copy-paste the space wolf wargear list from my original codex again, if you'd like to engage with that counterexample.

the_scotsman wrote:

You have invented a rule.

"FIGHT

When a unit is selected to fight, it first piles in, then the models in the unit must make attacks."

but can only attack with models in Engagement Range or within 1/2" of an inch of a model within 1/2" of an inch. What happens if he has 1 model .75" away from my unit and chooses not to pile in (or rather to pile in 0") ? That one model gets to attack, and no one else.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, the added ridiculousness of arguing that it DOESN'T feel like an accurate war when your units are unable to simply turn and run away from a melee unit without taking any kind of additional punishment for doing so....mwah. Chef's kiss for that.

Well, I think fallback is gamey too, actually, and disagreed with adding it in 8th, so we agree there. But it exists, wow so tactical.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

You have invented a rule.

"FIGHT

When a unit is selected to fight, it first piles in, then the models in the unit must make attacks."

but can only attack with models in Engagement Range or within 1/2" of an inch of a model within 1/2" of an inch. What happens if he has 1 model .75" away from my unit and chooses not to pile in (or rather to pile in 0") ? That one model gets to attack, and no one else.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, the added ridiculousness of arguing that it DOESN'T feel like an accurate war when your units are unable to simply turn and run away from a melee unit without taking any kind of additional punishment for doing so....mwah. Chef's kiss for that.

Well, I think fallback is gamey too, actually, and disagreed with adding it in 8th, so we agree there. But it exists, wow so tactical.

I'll bet you loved tripointing.

 Jidmah wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
9th makes movement more important than it was in 8th.

Agree with this. I can't put my finger on why exactly, but somewhere between smaller tables, new mission, strategic reserves and terrain I have the impression that blocking, flanking or sneaking up the board unseen has become more valuable than it has been in any of the other 4 editions I've played.

It's mainly just that kills don't matter any more. It makes a massive difference when the victory conditions are pretty much all about controlling space, aside from a few kill secondaries most people avoid giving up.

SecondTime wrote:
I'll bet you loved tripointing.

Oh yea, it was the best. /s

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

You have invented a rule.

"FIGHT

When a unit is selected to fight, it first piles in, then the models in the unit must make attacks."

but can only attack with models in Engagement Range or within 1/2" of an inch of a model within 1/2" of an inch. What happens if he has 1 model .75" away from my unit and chooses not to pile in (or rather to pile in 0") ? That one model gets to attack, and no one else.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, the added ridiculousness of arguing that it DOESN'T feel like an accurate war when your units are unable to simply turn and run away from a melee unit without taking any kind of additional punishment for doing so....mwah. Chef's kiss for that.

Well, I think fallback is gamey too, actually, and disagreed with adding it in 8th, so we agree there. But it exists, wow so tactical.

Your opponent removing 1 potential avenue of engaging with his unit (shooting it with units not in combat with it) leaves every other potential avenue of engaging with it open to you.

And is also something he could have done by sticking them behind a building. Which I hope you would not argue is not tactical?

1) move other units away from them
2) charge your own stuff into melee, kill the opposing unit in melee
3) do not pile in your own units, force him to try and get to your unit with just a pile-in move, and do everything you can to keep your unit alive until his turn

the_scotsman wrote:

I could copy-paste the space wolf wargear list from my original codex again, if you'd like to engage with that counterexample.

I'm not sure what arguing this point will accomplish, but I'll try anyway:

The point I (and Unit1126PLL) is getting at is there's a difference between something being part of the unit entry that is clearly identified on the army list, versus a having a large list of things that could possibly at any time be applied anywhere on the board It's a difference between whether a set of rules (wargear, special abilitiies, etc.) are "fixed" to a physical model that you can tactically strategize around or not.

Surely you see the difference?

In the regard to the amount of options and wargear a unit could take, sure the space wolves have a decent list of wargear options. So do Dark Eldar Haemoculi and many other units/factions. That said, even the most complex lists of wargear or unit options from older editions (5th, etc) don't have nearly as much potential stuff or as many unit types as they do now.

5th edition Necrons had 33 unit rosters and 27 weapons.

9th edition Necrons have 51 entries and 86 weapon entries. And then we can add on 6 dynastic codex, 12 traditions, 41 strategems, warlord traits, relics, etc.

It's not just marines.

the_scotsman wrote:
Your opponent removing 1 potential avenue of engaging with his unit (shooting it with units not in combat with it) leaves every other potential avenue of engaging with it open to you.

Which, in 40k, is limited to ... charging it, and psychicing it. Tactics! Oh, you talk about this later - fleeing from it! Definitely a plan.

the_scotsman wrote:
And is also something he could have done by sticking them behind a building. Which I hope you would not argue is not tactical?

Well, I can counterplay that by maneuvering in my own turn to see it, for example. He can remove a capability but with ON THE TABLE play (not pre-game stuff) I can counterplay his attempt at countering MY play. And then he can counter MY play by locking down that maneuvering lane with his own maneuver or fires, making it either impossible or at least too hazardous to take a position that can see around said build-
oh wait that's tactics™.

the_scotsman wrote:
1) move other units away from them
2) charge your own stuff into melee, kill the opposing unit in melee
3) do not pile in your own units, force him to try and get to your unit with just a pile-in move, and do everything you can to keep your unit alive until his turn

So basically 1 option, since option 3 is super gamey and weird (these two units are in CC but neither one is trying to kill the other right now!) and Option 2 is suicide playing Eldar against Black Templars. Option 1, i.e. abandoning the unit and leaving it to die, is basically the only solution. Plus, there is a limit to how far I can flee - the board edges. Tactical counterplay!

Just screen with non-infantry, problem solved. It's not as if Eldar armies these days are built around infantry blocks.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Just screen with non-infantry, problem solved. It's not as if Eldar armies these days are built around infantry blocks.

Right, like I mentioned, he used it when he was fighting a Vehicle, and neither one of us knew that was wrong. It was an error on his part. But that arguably speaks to the problem where there's so much going on he didn't even know his own rules, and I didn't even know if Psychic Awakening strats and stuff still applied to Codex units. I still don't, but I assume good faith on his part so I guess they do!

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
9th makes movement more important than it was in 8th.

Agree with this. I can't put my finger on why exactly, but somewhere between smaller tables, new mission, strategic reserves and terrain I have the impression that blocking, flanking or sneaking up the board unseen has become more valuable than it has been in any of the other 4 editions I've played.

It's mainly just that kills don't matter any more. It makes a massive difference when the victory conditions are pretty much all about controlling space, aside from a few kill secondaries most people avoid giving up.

Kills still matter. Dead units can't score.

I dunno, I don't think you can say there's a problem with the rules because your opponent didn't bother to read them right.

I mean I agree with the stupid way GW does rules, that require you to either spend a ridiculous amount of money a year, pirate, or assume your opponent is right about what they're saying. GW should enter the 21st century and either provide its rules free or else via a low-cost monthly subscription. But that's a different conversation.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
I'll bet you loved tripointing.

Oh yea, it was the best. /s

It's still in the game, but the payoff is WAY smaller, regardless of what the BA forums think.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I dunno, I don't think you can say there's a problem with the rules because your opponent didn't bother to read them right.

well, I'm not arguing there's a problem with that stratagem specifically. Before we got tied up in the minutiae of that specific interaction, the point I was generally trying to make was that "counterplay" is coming more 'out of the book' and 'out of the army list' than on the table.

I agree that maneuver is more important than in 8th, though, that's certain. But I think 8th was also not very tactical, so it's marginal.

"The game is shallow because I arbitrarily label many of the tactics available to me "gamey" and thus refuse to use them."

The kind of thing you'd complain about here have always existed in the game. because it's always been a game. People just, I don't know, don't remember them from earlier editions?

A couple examples:

1) In earlier editions units could not split their fire by default, which lead routinely to situations where your squad's rocket launcher could not target a tank or else everyone else in the squad had to sit around twiddling their thumbs

2) in earlier editions tanks had facings, but movement could occur in any direction, so it was perfectly normal for tanks to crabwalk around keeping their fronts pointed towards enemy units

3) in earlier editions the exact point of doubling a unit's toughness would cause Instant Death to trigger, making a space marine character mildly inconvenienced by an Autocannon (S7) but instantly blown away by a Krak Missile (S8)

4) in earlier editions wound allocation was not regulated strongly, leading to squads of models with multiple wounds being able to take 1 wound on each member without removing any from the board

Is there some stuff I'd like back from 5th? Yes. Is there some stuff I'd like to massively scale back on in 9th? Yes. Were I creating my perfect 40k system, would I start from 5th and add elements of 9th, or start from 9th and add elements from 5th? Absolutely the latter.

I just wouldn't want to give up subfactions, the cool diverse range of new models for basically every faction since 5th, missions that actually matter, universal split fire allowing mixed-role units to work, the 9th ed detachment structure and allies...honestly, I'd probably just bring back 5th ed style psykers, morale, and facing. That's about it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I dunno, I don't think you can say there's a problem with the rules because your opponent didn't bother to read them right.

well, I'm not arguing there's a problem with that stratagem specifically. Before we got tied up in the minutiae of that specific interaction, the point I was generally trying to make was that "counterplay" is coming more 'out of the book' and 'out of the army list' than on the table.

I think you're just going to have to agree to disagree. You have a conception of what you want "tactics" to mean when playing a miniatures game, and 40k has shifted slightly away from that. (and I'm not even sure what exactly you even mean by tactics based on your arguments) I don't think it's less "tactical" at all--I think it's more, in fact.

It's not less of a tactical miniature game at all, but it's not the same tactical miniature game it was 10 years ago, we can all agree. Whether that's good or bad is up to your personal preference.

I thought all of those things were gamey then, too, the_scotsman.

But that doesn't make things more tactical now than they were then, that just means things then also have flies in the ointment.

The point of the OP is 40k "feels" less tactical, and I think he's right. While there are things from 9th that are better than things from then, stuff has been systematically removed that makes the game more "wargamey" and less "gamey" e.g.:

1) Heavy weapons used to not be able to move and shoot. It was weird that when one model moved, the whole unit counted as moving - glad that's gone - but now it feels like a Devastator can just move, do a kickflip, a shoulder-roll, have a cigar, and then hit a jinking eldar tank with his lascannon as equally as an Imperial Bastion.
2) Armor facings were good, but you agree.
3) Templates were good, because they actually affected the positioning of models on the tabletop. This is controversial I realize, but I'd bring them back. There were gameplay consequences for spreading out (i.e. less force concentration, larger frontage to be charged, models bogging into terrain).
4) Cover saves were... weird, but the system we have now isn't better (now Heavy Infantry benefit WAY more than light infantry, which is backwards - otoh, the old way didn't give heavy infantry any benefit at all, which is also backwards).
5) Line of Sight in 4th was much more sensible than TLOS
6) Drawing line of sight from vehicle weapons was good, rather than just from literally anywhere for any weapon.

That isn't to ignore the flies in the ointment (MC/vehicle interactions were ATROCIOUS). Not at all. But I see the OP's point.

Personally, comparing the ACTUAL IN GAME EFFECT of the old blast system vs the new 9th ed one, the only thing the old blast/template system did was cause either player to engage in a gamey little dance of ensuring every unit was properly spaced 2" apart at all times.

You can say it "punished board positioning" or whatever, but that was only a mistake any player ever made one time, and that was the first time they got hit with a big blast. Every other time you'd just space your models out optimally.

the_scotsman wrote:
Personally, comparing the ACTUAL IN GAME EFFECT of the old blast system vs the new 9th ed one, the only thing the old blast/template system did was cause either player to engage in a gamey little dance of ensuring every unit was properly spaced 2" apart at all times.

You can say it "punished board positioning" or whatever, but that was only a mistake any player ever made one time, and that was the first time they got hit with a big blast. Every other time you'd just space your models out optimally.

Wrong, and a terrible lesson you would quickly learn against my 30k daemons army.

People assert this without realizing that spreading out 2" max for every model has 3 serious consequences:
1) Increased frontage vs. close combat units. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE spread out against my Slaanesh Daemons in 30k, so I can lock you in combat with 5 or 6 units instead of 1, you can't run away, then I H&R out on your turn (after savaging your unit) and go kill something valuable. Thanks for the free shield against your shooting, probably shouldn't've spread out as much.

2) Space on the table and your own damage output. It's harder to get all your models in rapid-fire range (or with shorter range guns in general) into range of my units while being spread across half of creation. Conversely, if I'm comfortable concentrating (because I am not afraid of your blasts or you don't have any) then I will be able to bring greater force to bear against a single point of your dramatically extended perimeter, and wiping out a whole unit will open a gaping hole rather than a small one.

3) Terrain - spreading out to a huge amount means some models will inevitably encounter terrain during their move, which has a chance to slow them down (or even kill the model if it's dangerous), or make them out of LOS for shooting, etc.

Here's my list -

Things I like better in 9th:

1) Basic squad movement and coherency as well as split fire. I hated the 2" spacing game, hated the fact that the game incentivized making every squad totally uniform in purpose, like 9th way better than traditional 'oldhammer'

2) New wounding chart, damage stat instead of instant death, current AP system instead of All Or Nothing AP

3) Subfactions, relics, warlord traits over tons of weird random invisible wargear items

4) Current deep strike and blast, and lack of the vehicle damage table. In theory, these highly swingy variable random rules were cool, but every time I try reimplementing them I remember just how often you ran into situations that just sucked ass, where some lucky shot just blew away a Land RAider turn 1. Also, I HATED deep strike in old eds as it related to melee units.

5) current close combat system vs old initiative system. Based on tactics instead of based on model stats, thumbs up.

Things I preferred in the older systems:

1) Psychic powers, Everything about 'em. I liked units having their own individual power lists rather than being shared among the whole faction, I hate Psychic Focus, I hate mortal wounds.

2) Facing. I'd probably simplify it to just a 180' arc on everything, where you can't target things outside your front arc unless the weapon had a special rule indicating it could (or must) shoot backward, and I'd institute like a blanket +1 to wound for being behind a target or something. Also I would not bring back the ol' "whoops all rear armor" in melee thing. If you attack in the rear arc, you get the rear arc bonus. Just more organic ways to limit a unit's offensive capability would be good.

3) long range penalties? Like, please can we have these in baseline 40k? They work great in kill team. I really hate that an intercessor shoots you just as effectively 30" away as he does 2" away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Personally, comparing the ACTUAL IN GAME EFFECT of the old blast system vs the new 9th ed one, the only thing the old blast/template system did was cause either player to engage in a gamey little dance of ensuring every unit was properly spaced 2" apart at all times.

You can say it "punished board positioning" or whatever, but that was only a mistake any player ever made one time, and that was the first time they got hit with a big blast. Every other time you'd just space your models out optimally.

Wrong, and a terrible lesson you would quickly learn against my 30k daemons army.

People assert this without realizing that spreading out 2" max for every model has 3 serious consequences:
1) Increased frontage vs. close combat units. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE spread out against my Slaanesh Daemons in 30k, so I can lock you in combat with 5 or 6 units instead of 1, you can't run away, then I H&R out on your turn (after savaging your unit) and go kill something valuable. Thanks for the free shield against your shooting, probably shouldn't've spread out as much.

2) Space on the table and your own damage output. It's harder to get all your models in rapid-fire range (or with shorter range guns in general) into range of my units while being spread across half of creation. Conversely, if I'm comfortable concentrating (because I am not afraid of your blasts or you don't have any) then I will be able to bring greater force to bear against a single point of your dramatically extended perimeter, and wiping out a whole unit will open a gaping hole rather than a small one.

3) Terrain - spreading out to a huge amount means some models will inevitably encounter terrain during their move, which has a chance to slow them down (or even kill the model if it's dangerous), or make them out of LOS for shooting, etc.

...how many blast weapons does your Slaanesh Daemon army have to threaten me with?

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's my list -

Things I like better in 9th:

1) Basic squad movement and coherency as well as split fire. I hated the 2" spacing game, hated the fact that the game incentivized making every squad totally uniform in purpose, like 9th way better than traditional 'oldhammer'

There's lots in here, but I agree with splitfire. Squad coherency I think is wrong in both systems for the scale 40k is played at.

the_scotsman wrote:
2) New wounding chart, damage stat instead of instant death, current AP system instead of All Or Nothing AP

I dislike the new wounding chart, but I do like damage instead of ID. New and old AP have arguments for both, but I don't feel the new one is too bad or overly gamey.

the_scotsman wrote:
3) Subfactions, relics, warlord traits over tons of weird random invisible wargear items

I like subfactions, relics, and WT also, but those also used to exist. The weird random invisible wargear didn't bother me, as long as I knew where it was on the table (which you can't do with stratagems because they can be anywhere as needed).

the_scotsman wrote:
4) Current deep strike and blast, and lack of the vehicle damage table. In theory, these highly swingy variable random rules were cool, but every time I try reimplementing them I remember just how often you ran into situations that just sucked ass, where some lucky shot just blew away a Land RAider turn 1. Also, I HATED deep strike in old eds as it related to melee units.

Modern Deep Strike I like for simplicity but I also dislike for a variety of reasons, number 1 of which is the precision. With no chance of mishap or failure or error, combined with no reserve rolls, it feels very "plop these models on the table, there they are" rather than "this unit just descended on jetpacks from orbit". YMMV. Blast is very vital to my army's tactics in 30k precisely because people think spreading out when faced with them is the "automatic best way" and refuse to consider the alternative, so I exploit the hell out of that incorrect psychology. Vehicle Damage Table I also liked for realism reasons, rather than the current system which feels very, well, "gamey" and utterly unrealistic.

Melee units is almost a separate topic in general, because Turn 1 charges were a huge problem, and deepstrike & charge was a huge problem for the same reason. This requires further consideration.

the_scotsman wrote:
5) current close combat system vs old initiative system. Based on tactics instead of based on model stats, thumbs up.

Eh, I liked initiative as a defensive tool, but in general I can see this. I don't mind the new combat system.

the_scotsman wrote:
Things I preferred in the older systems:

1) Psychic powers, Everything about 'em. I liked units having their own individual power lists rather than being shared among the whole faction, I hate Psychic Focus, I hate mortal wounds.

2) Facing. I'd probably simplify it to just a 180' arc on everything, where you can't target things outside your front arc unless the weapon had a special rule indicating it could (or must) shoot backward, and I'd institute like a blanket +1 to wound for being behind a target or something. Also I would not bring back the ol' "whoops all rear armor" in melee thing. If you attack in the rear arc, you get the rear arc bonus. Just more organic ways to limit a unit's offensive capability would be good.

3) long range penalties? Like, please can we have these in baseline 40k? They work great in kill team. I really hate that an intercessor shoots you just as effectively 30" away as he does 2" away.

Agreed... with one caveat. I didn't like the way powers were selected (or Warlord Traits for that matter) in older editions.

the_scotsman wrote:
...how many blast weapons does your Slaanesh Daemon army have to threaten me with?

Always bring 3 Medusa Carriages in an allied Militia detachment. People see 3 Medusa cannons and they're like "Welp, time to spread out" and then my daemons pounce on them and it turns out taking the medusa pounding would've probably been better...

You're really arguing for different levels of abstraction, and not more or less "tactics".

I would say a bigger reason that 9th and to a certain extent 8th feels gamey is the sheer volume of rules interactions with multiple sources makes actually having a reasonable understanding of what everything does has gone. Heck even if you did read the book did you read the FAQ 1.4 no I know it was FAQ 1.2 for this book, on subday but who a similar rule works is covered in an unrealted FAQ and it's now 1.4 and they changed it from how it used to work in versions 1 to 1.3

The other issue is CA2020 means it really doesn't matter what you put on the table or how well you play currently that fact that your playing X faction vrs Y faction means short of your opponent rolling nothing but 1's for the entire game your not winning.

Quasistellar wrote:
You're really arguing for different levels of abstraction, and not more or less "tactics".

right, which is why I framed it in terms of war(game) and (war)game in my earlier thread, but I still think it's what the OP means.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But that doesn't make things more tactical now than they were then, that just means things then also have flies in the ointment.

the_scotsman wrote:
Things I like better in 9th:

FWIW, my current/on-going homebrew project is ProHammer. This started with 5th edition as a base (not 8th or 9th) but has pulled in rules from across various versions of 40K and got them working together.

Some of the specifics that we’ve done to address issues with the older rules and take advantage of some newer ones include:

(1) Units can pass a Ld to split fire at up to two targets (vehicles count as Ld 10) like in 8th/9th (but not as strong)
(2) No instant death – just D3 wounds instead.
(3) Revised vehicle damage tables. Not as easy to blow stuff up like in 6th, nor as a difficult in 5th. We tried to strike a careful balance here. Adjusted how many weapons and vehicle can move and shoot with depending on its speed.
(4) Revised deep strike rules to be less punishing when failures occur
(5) Movement is model by model (so heavy weapon models can stand still)
(6) Added snap fire rules to a number of different situations
(7) Totally revised the wound allocation process to eliminate 5th’s wound allocation shenanigans and make it more fair and logical overall. Intrinsically accounts for mixed armor/cover saves and streamlines the rules.

There’s a bunch more stuff we’re working on right now – mostly re-doing all the missions and mission setup process. We’re also experimenting with an optional alternative turn structure that we’re already seeing as a way to deepen the tactical play without having to modify codex rules at all. Currently it allows players to use whatever codex they want from 3rd – 7th edition with some restrictions on the later editions (i.e. no formations allowed).

Anyway check it out if interested.

That said – I’m still curious to hear more from you all on the current topic.

Quasistellar wrote:
You're really arguing for different levels of abstraction, and not more or less "tactics".

That was my initial point. It was countered with an argument about what "Feels like" tactics.

Returning to the example of the black templars squad that just charges in with 1 member, tying your unit up and using their "you can't run away" stratagem and you're playing Eldar, one option in the hands of the defending player is taking a vehicle that's too big for the templars to really hurt, and moving it such that it's the closest model to most of the templars squad, blocking off their ability to pile in and kill the Dire Avengers (or whatever) they're fighting.

You can choose to condemn this as "gameyness" because ohhh the black templars can then only fight the tank yeah that makes sense NOT...or, you can envision the eldar plowing their transport into the crusaders, unable to do any real damage to the power-armored marines, but able to prevent them from reaching the eldar troops they were aiming to pile into and carve up.

At the end of the day, it just comes down to "thing I don't like, I will label it as soulless and gamey, thing I do like, I will label as just smart tactics".

Someone could easily criticize bringing an allied militia detachment with heavy artillery with your slaanesh daemons as a gamey trick.

I mean, if you say so. The argument is obviously subjective, initially, and it will always be that.

I'll use Quasistellar's terms since you agreed with his framing:

A more abstract wargame is more distant from reality than a less abstract wargame. (1)
The more distant from reality a wargame is, the less realistic the tactics become. (2)
At some level, the wargame's tactics become so unrealistic that they no longer feel "tactical" and instead feel "gamey" (3).
This threshold is subjective. (4)

So we are arguing about different levels of abstraction because, subjectively, the current level of abstraction is too far removed from reality in my opinion. This makes "tactics" that apply at that level of abstraction feel less like "tactics" and more like "exploiting the way this interaction was abstracted in a way that wouldn't be "real" in the setting." I.e. gameyness.