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
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Speaking of turning a character into a spawn... the last 40k game I played, Abaddon killed Mortarion so I decided to spend the CP to roll on the boon table.

2 1s, no option to re-roll it. Abaddon was then a spawn. Worst part? I had no spawn model, or even a 50mm base to put down to represent one, so I didn't even get that.

Needless to say, I lost and learned never to use that stratagem again for any reason.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I've still had plenty of "Warhammer moments" in 9th. Removing easy rerolls for characters was a good move.

Balancing randomness is key. Remember those crazy tables Daemons had to roll on in 7th? Or the mandatory rolls on the boon table when CSM killed a character? Those were great fun for the rare random wtf moments, but most people actively avoided them. Yay, I got +1BS on my BS7 character!

While turning a character into a spawn is fluffy it can be totally unfun for many players - competitively or otherwise.


The Chaos Boon Table wasn't "fluffy" for every Legion. In the same codex they wrote this:

The Night Lords fight for the pleasure of the kill and for material gains, not because of the dictates of any deity - in fact, most of their number look down on the faithful as naive fools.


......they forced that garbage down our throats. More proof that the rules writers don't talk to the fluff writers enough.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Its a conflict at the end of the day.

I still occasionally play 8th edition WHFB with a friend of mine. He got me back into Fantasy in the early 2010s having been out of it for a while. I knew he wasn't competitive, he didn't follow the meta, or even just the general view of the game in general. So I built this mainly goblin army - which can be entirely *random* (there are things you can do to uplift it versus more competitive opponents, within the limitations of 8th). So in those games I can embrace the fact I'm rolling the dice and chaos will ensue. I'm not playing *to win*, so it doesn't matter if my army falls apart from animosity, stupidity, warmachines and wizards blowing up, fanatics running through my own units etc. The pretzels and beer are usually free flowing, its not serious. Its an entertaining way of using up a weekend afternoon.

But equally when I go to a tournament, and I'm aiming to play well, I don't want an army list - or a rules system - where it can all fall apart because I make a few bad rolls. I want to be able to reason out "okay I did X, could I have instead have done Y?" I want at least the illusion that my choices matter rather than it just being a function of throwing dice. If you play enough games there will inevitably be those where you massively underperform on shooting. But that's different I think to "oh you rolled a 1? that tank is immobilised". The thing about shooting is that one unit might be all 1s, but the next might be all 6s. By contrast these things people hate are usually discrete. For example a unit deep striking and being destroyed - or placed in a distant corner with no way to get back into the game - isn't really something you can plan for. You don't have a plan B in such circumstance, you are just much more likely to lose the game.

Fundamentally though I think its a clash. You play 50-100 games a year (or more), the fact some of those are blowouts for one side or the other based on random dice throws doesn't really matter. If you play 5-10 times a year (or less) and you get a couple like that, you may feel this is a stupid game, you are wasting your time and should play something else. Its the same I think for gotchas. Is it just a learning experience that you learn from and remember for next time, or has it ruined a once in 3 months experience and you are demotivated from trying again?
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 JNAProductions wrote:
See, I don’t think a full half of the games should be decided purely on dice.

If I play perfectly and my opponent plays like garbage, should they really still have a coin flip chance of winning?


Well I think some extremely bad decisions from an unexperienced player can definitely have a massive impact on the game. But if both players are basically on the same level my ideal game would give actual decisions an impact of 20ish%, that's what I meant.


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





The only game from GW imo in which skill clearly outshines luck and list building is Blood Bowl. In BB I can make life difficult for my opponent just by positioning my models in a certain way. Most of the time I don't have to roll a single dice to achieve that.

However 40K never had such a mechanic in which outmaneuvering your opponent would leave him at a disadvantage. True, back in the day you could target side and rear armour of vehicles but infantry didn't care from which direction they were killed with the exception of Cityfights.

Problem is that 40K is a war game and in such your units are always threatened by opposing ranged units. A few good rolls and your soldiers are gone. BB offers security for your players which is to keep them not adjacent to the opponents. That way the opponent can only attack your players via a BLITZ or a foul.

It would need a MAJOR reinvention of 40K to offer your units a ton of passive boni, if you were able to outmaneuver your opponent to get the same sense of security BB offers for skillful playing. Maybe that and a much larger board and smaller forces to make maneuvering possible in the first place.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 Strg Alt wrote:
The only game from GW imo in which skill clearly outshines luck and list building is Blood Bowl. In BB I can make life difficult for my opponent just by positioning my models in a certain way. Most of the time I don't have to roll a single dice to achieve that.

However 40K never had such a mechanic in which outmaneuvering your opponent would leave him at a disadvantage. True, back in the day you could target side and rear armour of vehicles but infantry didn't care from which direction they were killed with the exception of Cityfights.

Problem is that 40K is a war game and in such your units are always threatened by opposing ranged units. A few good rolls and your soldiers are gone. BB offers security for your players which is to keep them not adjacent to the opponents. That way the opponent can only attack your players via a BLITZ or a foul.

It would need a MAJOR reinvention of 40K to offer your units a ton of passive boni, if you were able to outmaneuver your opponent to get the same sense of security BB offers for skillful playing. Maybe that and a much larger board and smaller forces to make maneuvering possible in the first place.
While it's true there are very few statistical bonuses for maneuvering, your characterization of 40k is entirely wrong. At a higher skill level, out maneuvering your opponent is how games are won. Your units are not always threatened by enemy shooting, because there should be prevalent Obscuring terrain. In fact, in practice the opposite is often true: a strong melee unit is hidden and projects a charge threat radius the opponent has to avoid.

Another simple example is that you can physically block the opponent's movement, because they can't retaliate until after the Movement phase. This is a core strategy for several armies, like Harlequins and Dark Eldar. A couple fast, cheap sacrificial units prevent the enemy's movement for a turn and force them to fall behind on scoring. Plus there's always other examples of important movement like bubble wrapping against charges, or spreading out to deny Deepstrikes or reserves.

In 9th edition, how you position your models relative to your opponent and the objectives is what decides games. Just watch some high level battle reports from teams like Vanguard Tactics or Art of War 40k. You'll very quickly see how much thought and effort goes into maneuvering.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





@Dark:
We are not talking about the same game at all. "Bubble wrapping" is a feature of one of the newest edition of 40K with all the alpha strike nonsense. It's more of a gimmick to exploit the loop holes of the game than a sound tactic.

Regardless of obstructing terrain you will still always have firing lanes which pose dangers. So you can't control the environment as much as in Blood Bowl that's why skill takes a backseat as opposed to luck.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Bubble wrapping has always been in the game. It just means you put a sacrificial unit in front an important one to intercept an opponent's charge. It's literally an ancient, real life strategy. That's not a game exploit.

There is a vast logical gulf between "the enemy can shoot" and "therefore, luck outshines skill" which you need to fill. You can absolutely "control the environment" if you throw two jetbike squads to block an army's movement to the objectives.

Oh, you know what? Now I understand. Out of curiosity I looked at your battle reports. You meant it, you really are not playing the same game as me. You play on an open field with just a few hills. No wonder you feel like you're always vulnerable to shooting. Your board would have been great in older editions, but 9th requires so much more terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 22:01:22


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.

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

 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.


Which is sad.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Back in 6th the battlefields I played on were often set up so that my Monoliths had to take dangerous terrain tests to get places, the tactical choice I had to make was whether to stay still or to move and maybe get stuck. So when I did get stuck in dangerous terrain, it wasn't like I often had much of an alternative. I really like Wyldhunt's posts about the thematic element, to me the times my Monolith got stuck were game-breaking in how much they sucked on a thematic level, it happened so much that it became a running gag so it wasn't terrible for gameplay, because I expected it to happen and was able to laugh it off.
 Blackie wrote:
A) A unit killed for a failed deepstrike is enojying for the opponent!

In the same way a failed charge roll is? Both these events can be enjoyable, but if you're ahead and your opponent cannot make a charge roll to save a life or their deep strikes go against them, then it's not fun. Random charge length is also necessary when you have pre-measuring allowed, otherwise, the game just turns into chess as people line up 0,1" out of charge range instead of getting as far away as possible to minimize the chance of getting charged.
 vipoid wrote:
Now, as others have already said, it's fair to say that the old rules were too punishing (the risks involved in deep striking were often excessive, relative to the reward). However, the new rules have removed risk and randomness entirely - meaning it's more reliable to parachute down onto a battlefield than it is to merely walk through it at a slightly faster pace.

Paratroopers that paid for parachutes actually getting to do a parachute drop? The horror. The opportunity cost was paid during list building when I chose to take paratroopers instead of basic infantry.
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.

BB is all about position and manoeuvre, I don't get how you could get a game more about that than BB, it's a part of every instance of the game, from movement, to passing, to combat, it matters where your dudes are in relation to each other and in relation to your opponent's dudes and manoeuvring is risky business in BB so you have to judge which risks are worth taking to get into position and which risks to take first. Do you want to be unable to Advance while near enemy units, a penalty to melee when near several enemy units, a penalty to hit enemies near allies or behind other enemy units, to automatically fail charges against enemies on higher ground, a chance of failing to climb to higher ground? Those wouldn't be bad things, it might be an interesting game mode at least, but even with those additional rules BB would still be the position and manoeuvre game. Do you dislike BB? I think it's a pretty great game, the only thing I don't like is the turnover mechanic when you forget things, but the video game handles that. I often regret not having the game permanently installed on my hard drive.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 DarkHound wrote:
Bubble wrapping has always been in the game. It just means you put a sacrificial unit in front an important one to intercept an opponent's charge. It's literally an ancient, real life strategy. That's not a game exploit.

There is a vast logical gulf between "the enemy can shoot" and "therefore, luck outshines skill" which you need to fill. You can absolutely "control the environment" if you throw two jetbike squads to block an army's movement to the objectives.

Oh, you know what? Now I understand. Out of curiosity I looked at your battle reports. You meant it, you really are not playing the same game as me. You play on an open field with just a few hills. No wonder you feel like you're always vulnerable to shooting. Your board would have been great in older editions, but 9th requires so much more terrain.


Those battle reports of mine have used abstract area terrain rules. Not true LOS. HUGE difference! And yes, I am playing older editions of 40K (custom 2nd and custom 3rd-6th).

Good luck using your "Bubble wrapping" with SM, Eldar and CSM armies who don't use cultists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.


Yes, and it needs to change.

Sadly the Pokémon generation of 40K want "Gotcha" cards in the form of stratagem and aura abilities. It's going to get even worse in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Vict:
I am going to read the last version of the Epic rules. I have them printed out somewhere. Those rules included stuff like units being at a disadvantage simply by being shot at (no hits or casualties needed), other friendly units in the area lending support (like an assist in Blood Bowl) and crossfire zones.

Maybe it is worthwhile to incorporate some of them in my future battle reports.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 09:26:56


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






What game is BB?

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







Lots of hate for randomness in this thread, which is a pity.

Randomness is the linchpin of games that try to reflect some semblance of the warfight both above (missions and sometimes allocated support to the player) and below (unit behaviors) the level the player is commanding at.

Understanding the abstraction of randomness, perhaps, is the problem here. A tank getting stuck on a difficult terrain isn't LITERALLY permanently stuck. It just requires some time and care taken with an unditching beam, which is an operation you don't perform within yards of the enemy.

Infantry moving slowly through terrain aren't moving slowly because they are LITERALLY stuck. It can be a combination of the actual difficulty of the terrain, a command-and-control issue as the sergeant loses LOS of each member of the squad (maybe they were advancing based on hand signals?), concern for running across the enemy unexpectedly in constrained sightlines... there are many many reasons to slow down in a dense forest rather than an asphalt road if you have ever run though them in real life, NOT TO MENTION there's an enemy in 40k and usually not in real life.

Heck, I can continue to explain abstractions but it is interesting that people hate randomness so much, given how important it is to other wargames that are trying to reflect reality.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Mezmorki wrote:
What game is BB?


Blood Bowl.

Its an odd thing - because yes, where you place your guys impacts the probability of your and your opponents actions and learning that is clearly a skill.

But its also a game famous for toe-curlingly excruciating swings of luck. If the dice decide you are going to roll 2 ones (or skulls) in a row that's it for a turn, while your opponent may chain 5s and 6s so ignore all that careful positioning you engaged in. There's nothing you can do about it, Nuffle's just gone "nah".

Competitive 40k is all about manoeuvre and positioning your models. List building and faction choice undoubtedly matters - but that's just a given. If you were for some reason playing Blood Bowl as a succession of one-off games (or perhaps vaguely seriously in any format) you wouldn't choose to bring Halflings.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Competitive 40K in a nutshell:

Spam the current broken unit due to a profit driven sales concept. In the past those were for example Riptides and Hellturkeys.

Or exploit badly worded basic rules like in 5th Ork Biker Nobz with wound allocation shenanigans.

In BB the Living Rulebook was written by fans and the game itself kept alive by the community. 40K needs such a treatment too because of current dumpster fire rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 17:49:34


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Strg Alt wrote:
Competitive 40K in a nutshell:

Spam the current broken unit due to a profit driven sales concept. In the past those were for example Riptides and Hellturkeys.

Or exploit badly worded basic rules like in 5th Ork Biker Nobz with wound allocation shenanigans.

In BB the Living Rulebook was written by fans and the game itself kept alive by the community. 40K needs such a treatment too because of current dumpster fire rules.



We're well beyond the 5th/6th/7th edition dynamics. The only army taking the max of a unit right now is basically Orks. Admech sometimes takes a lot of infantry, but never maxes out and never maxes chickens. DE "spam" raiders, because that's how their army gets around.

Here's a 2nd place SW list:

Chaplain on Bike
5 Assault Intercessors
Wulfen Dread
2 Cyberwolves

Librarian
2 Redemptors
Relic Contemptor
3x5 Wolf Guard
5 TWC
4 TWC

And here's a 3rd place DA list:

Azrael
Talonmaster
2x2 DW Command
10 DW Terminators
Apothecary
Champion

Talonmaster
3 Suppressors
3 Eradicators
5 Hellblasters
TFC

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Unit1126PLL wrote:
Heck, I can continue to explain abstractions but it is interesting that people hate randomness so much, given how important it is to other wargames that are trying to reflect reality.

Oh I absolutely understand the concept of abstraction. I bring it up on this forum all the time. But having my land raider get stuck on a bush is a frustrating experience even if I come up with a great in-universe explanation for how it happened. Games are a series of interesting decisions. Having your unit move basically 0" because of terrain means that the number of interesting decisions I get to make is reduced. I wanted to make the decision to leave the crater, round the corner, and bring my short-ranged firepower to bear at the cost of leaving my unit exposed to return fire on the following turn; but a difficult terrain roll took that decision away from me. And not only did it take that decision away, but it also took my ability to shoot or charge with that unit away creating the feeling that I'm not actually getting to play with my toys.

Basically, having units rendered inactive or removed from the game by random rolls (rather than by my opponent's own choices and actions) removes my sense of agency. And that's on top of diminishing the power fantasy behind my supposedly badass units. Like, having assault marines splatter themselves across some ruins when they deepstrike in because I rolled badly on scatter and the deepstrike mishap chart doesn't really forge the sort of narrative that was advertised. It just seems goofy and out of character. And if I was already losing the game, or if that unit dying on arrival is what causes me to lose the game, then it's just a frustrating turn of events. Deepstriking that squad may have been the objectively correct tactical decision, but the randomness of the deepstrike mechanics basically punished me for attempting it.

Also, I'd argue that 40k should prioritize power fantasy considerations over "reflecting reality." I know that some amount of realism keeps things grounded, but needing to call roadside assistance for my science tank might not be the best place to inject it.


Strg Alt wrote:Competitive 40K in a nutshell:

Spam the current broken unit due to a profit driven sales concept. In the past those were for example Riptides and Hellturkeys.

Or exploit badly worded basic rules like in 5th Ork Biker Nobz with wound allocation shenanigans.

Is that even accurate for competitive 40k these days. I've been out of the loop on competitive stuff for a while now, but last I heard, unit spamming wasn't all that common among competitive lists. I was under the impression that you actually wanted a fairly diverse list because competitive games are won on the backs of stratagems, and you can only use a given stratagem once per phase. So you're encouraged to take a blob unit that can benefit from your infantry-specific force multiplier strat, and you want to take one or two (but not three) of unit X so that you can use the "shoot twice with unit X" stratagem each turn, and you want to have a deepstriking melee unit that can use your "roll 3d6 when you charge" stratagem, but you don't want a second such unit because then it would just be stuck trying for a 9" charge on 2d6.

And I was under the impression that 9th edition's very wordy rules writing had removed a lot of the "badly worded" rules ambiguity. What's the 9th edition equivalent of the 5th edition phenomenon you've described?

   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

In this thread: people who don't play 9th, let alone play tournaments, make conjecture about the state of the game and influence of competitive play.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Racerguy180 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Position and manoeuvre matters far more in BB than it does in 40k.


Which is sad.


No it's not. It's perfectly logical- a game that has no ranged attacks obviously is going to be more concerned about position than one that does.

Quite frankly, the two games shouldn't even be compared. Anything that works in a melee only game is going to have little relevance for a game where even dedicated CC units have the capacity to fire at range.

And let's not even talk about the psychic phase.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Wyldhunt wrote:
Is that even accurate for competitive 40k these days. I've been out of the loop on competitive stuff for a while now, but last I heard, unit spamming wasn't all that common among competitive lists. I was under the impression that you actually wanted a fairly diverse list because competitive games are won on the backs of stratagems, and you can only use a given stratagem once per phase.


No, we don't typically try to take units based around stratagems. We take units for a purpose. Sub factions can encourage certain units either through strats or other rules.

You need to be able to hold objectives, do actions, and remove enemy models. Those actions will probably require crossing the board, which means considering deepstrike or some other form of increased mobility.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Is that even accurate for competitive 40k these days. I've been out of the loop on competitive stuff for a while now, but last I heard, unit spamming wasn't all that common among competitive lists. I was under the impression that you actually wanted a fairly diverse list because competitive games are won on the backs of stratagems, and you can only use a given stratagem once per phase.


No, we don't typically try to take units based around stratagems. We take units for a purpose. Sub factions can encourage certain units either through strats or other rules.

You need to be able to hold objectives, do actions, and remove enemy models. Those actions will probably require crossing the board, which means considering deepstrike or some other form of increased mobility.

Right, but stratagems (and psychic powers which are also limited to once per turn) tend to be important for fulfilling those purposes, right? Like, this is possibly a bad example because tyranids aren't doing so great right now, but my buddy talks about he always wants a unit of hiveguard and an exocrine so he can use a "shoot more better" stratagem on each of them each turn. Sometimes he wants an additional exocrine in case the first one dies, but he never wants a third exocrine because he's too likely to spend much of the game *not* using the exocrine strat on that third exocrine.

Basically, my understanding is that you want to fulfill those purposes with the optimal unit for the job, and the optimal unit often requires a strat, spell, relic, etc. to be optimal. And a different unit using a different strat/spell/etc. is often more optimal than a second instance of the first unit without its key strat/spell/etc. So you're less likely to spam "the best" unit and more likely to take a variety of units that are collectively the best overall set of options. Or put another way, you're not spamming three hiveguard squads; you're taking one hiveguard squad, one exocrine, and then whatever the most optimal choice after that is.

But as I said, I'm not really in the loop in regards to competitive lists right now. Maybe I'm full of grox dung.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Tyranids are a bit of an odd example because their strength is really tied up in just those couple units.

The thing is, particularly in 9th edition codexes, the internal balance of the codex is really good, so "most optimal choice after that" is a really thin margin based more on your preferred strategies. No top scoring lists are identical. Seriously, there have never been two tournament winning lists with the same mix, except by the same player. Even then, a winning player will tweak their list based on the terrain of the upcoming tournament and the expected field of armies.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 DarkHound wrote:
Tyranids are a bit of an odd example because their strength is really tied up in just those couple units.

The thing is, particularly in 9th edition codexes, the internal balance of the codex is really good, so "most optimal choice after that" is a really thin margin based more on your preferred strategies. No top scoring lists are identical. Seriously, there have never been two tournament winning lists with the same mix, except by the same player. Even then, a winning player will tweak their list based on the terrain of the upcoming tournament and the expected field of armies.

Fair enough. In that case, it still sounds like the assertion that competitive armies are just spamming their strongest units over and over isn't really accurate. If no top scoring lists are identical, that makes me think we're seeing a fair bit of unit diversity.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

That's true, with the exception that Dark Eldar and AdMech are rocking about 70% winrates and top almost all events. Now, those winrates are carried by particular combinations of sub-factions and a few abnormally strong units. No list is identical, but the tippy-top of those two factions are 2/3s the same. That last third is a rotating gallery of the rest of the book, depending on which particular secondaries you want to score.

Other, more reasonable, 9e books also tend toward a couple sub-factions, which inform their unit choices, but there's a much wider variety with them because their choices aren't being overshadowed.

The meta is complicated and nuanced. Which is my earlier point: almost all the arguments about competitive that come up in General Discussion are completely divorced from the reality of the game. It's more effort than it's worth to untangle them, and mostly people don't want a good faith discussion anyway.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 19:15:48


   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

This sort of meta competitive stuff seems exactly what the OP felt is not so interesting about some forms of 40k… nothing tactical, strategic, or optimal unless optimisation is about win rates rather than fun. The OP seems to be asking about optimising for interesting and fun, not a table top exercise testing if one has solved the game with pre game list building commission painted for a big event. Not interesting, either, imho

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 jeff white wrote:
This sort of meta competitive stuff seems exactly what the OP felt is not so interesting about some forms of 40k… nothing tactical, strategic, or optimal unless optimisation is about win rates rather than fun. The OP seems to be asking about optimising for interesting and fun, not a table top exercise testing if one has solved the game with pre game list building commission painted for a big event. Not interesting, either, imho


It feels like you're processing what was said through your own lens to pre-determined your own conclusion. Not much else can be said that can be conveyed without experience.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 22:16:55


   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Yeah, I don't know where to begin with Jeff's post. He's presuming a conclusion.

Yes, most games can be broken down into optimization puzzles. Optimization is, by definition, maximizing success rates. That's necessary to playing an adversarial competitive game: you're trying to win more than your opponent. The OP was talking about obscuring the optimization puzzle by adding more randomness to make the calculations impossible. I'd argue this removes gameplay depth: by making the optimization puzzle impossible, you actually remove player agency and depth because they can't make informed choices. It doesn't matter what they choose if anything can happen from any choice. As soon as you say "but they should make this choice because then this outcome is more likely" then you're back to a solvable optimization puzzle.

Ultimately both Jeff's post and the OP are a solution looking for a problem. You presume 40k is not tactically or strategically deep, but it is. 40k is not a solved puzzle. Pre-game list building is important, but it is not solved, evidenced by the fact that even the overpowered armies do not have a consensus build.

I suppose actually I disagree with the OP's first sentence and the entire premise of the thread. I applaud them for defining terms, and I agree with their definitions, but I know those complex decisions are already present in the game. If the game doesn't feel deep because you always know what the right decision is, you should go run rampant through the GTs.

Anyone actually paying attention to the GT meta or playing in tournaments and leagues knows that playing the game well is hard. It's very difficult to make the right decisions. That's what's interesting about the game. That's what depth means.

If the depth of the game isn't interesting to you, that's okay. There's plenty of other content where the gameplay depth is not the main attraction, such as narrative campaigns. Crusade is my primary game mode, I love it. But then you shouldn't come into a discussion about gameplay depth.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 22:50:12


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 vict0988 wrote:
BB is all about position and manoeuvre, I don't get how you could get a game more about that than BB, it's a part of every instance of the game, from movement, to passing, to combat, it matters where your dudes are in relation to each other and in relation to your opponent's dudes and manoeuvring is risky business in BB so you have to judge which risks are worth taking to get into position and which risks to take first... Do you dislike BB? I think it's a pretty great game, the only thing I don't like is the turnover mechanic when you forget things, but the video game handles that. I often regret not having the game permanently installed on my hard drive.
Umm... I said that position and manoeuvre matters in BB. I'm not sure why you felt the need to launch into an argument that basically agrees with that.

 vict0988 wrote:
Do you want to be unable to Advance while near enemy units, a penalty to melee when near several enemy units, a penalty to hit enemies near allies or behind other enemy units, to automatically fail charges against enemies on higher ground, a chance of failing to climb to higher ground? Those wouldn't be bad things, it might be an interesting game mode at least, but even with those additional rules BB would still be the position and manoeuvre game.
Yeah, I more meant that position and manoeuvre actually don't matter all that much in 40k. I'm not suggesting that some grand adaptation of 'tackle zones' for 40k would be a resolution. My post even had a link to what I'm talking about - the way cover and LOS interact (or don't) and the way that vehicles in 8th/9th aren't really vehicles anymore.

PenitentJake wrote:
No it's not. It's perfectly logical- a game that has no ranged attacks obviously is going to be more concerned about position than one that does.
So it's perfectly logical that this Hive Tyrant is completely out of LOS, but this Hive Tyrant is fair game for all shooting?

This is what I mean by position and manoeuvre, and how little it matters in 40k. It is sad.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 22:58:21


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

 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





If auras are one of the most frequent complaints about 9th, and auras have a range from characters that grant them, and if the number of characters that grant them have been limited...

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: