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.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Current 40k has one real tactic at play: Trade up.

That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.

To the OP:

The current edition has eliminated a lot of what you call "universal tactics" and things related to position and maneuver. The "spatial tactics" have given way to an even bigger optimization puzzle masquerading as strategy. There are fewer "hard choices" and many things that seek to minimize risk and uncertainty. Many of the unexpected dramatic moments that defined thematic play are gone and replaced by endless special rules and stratagems and die roll modifiers.

That's my feeling anyway.

If you liked the older editions and have willing players, just go back and play the older editions.

I do want to emphasize other points made here that contribute to current edition woes. Faster movement, bigger armies, and smaller boards makes for a worse experience. Armies are too big with too much redundancies built in and too much opportunity for alpha strikes being able to knock out key units in an opponents army. Given a similar relative amount of terrain, bigger armies on smaller boards are going to be lethal and more about "trading up" as mentioned earlier. A more dense and crowded playing field means there are simply less viable places to move and less strategies that can stem from that.

As an onlooker, who does enjoy strat & tactics, who has watched the how-to-plays (but has no one to play with) and probably won't make a long drive to do it. I can relate to all the points being made here without first hand xp.

As has been said from numerous people who apparently have lots more xp than I, there is a complexity level/learning curve for newbs that means only the more driven will continue forward.

Now I'm sure many of you will say great that's how it should be, and that's understandable because you only really want to be playing with people who are dedicated to the love of the game.

But... this is the kind of thing I find at work too, where if you're not trained it's discouraging for some who would otherwise be highly trainable/adaptable with a mentor (consider the play vids where they pull someone who's never played before and guide them through the process.)

I've not given up, just can't personally play due to circumstance or I'd give it a shot and while OnePageRules sounds like something I would like, I also do enjoy a bit of role play. So hopefully there will be some flexibility with 10th that will allow you to play how you want? I'm only going off what I read/hear, and have witnessed in a very limited way.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Current 40k has one real tactic at play: Trade up.

That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.

While "trade up" is always something you want to do in any game, saying it's always been the only game in town is objectively false.

To give you a stupidly simple example: Spacing was critical in 3rd and 4th edition due to Sweeping Advance. If you didn't space your squads, you'd wind up having tooled out melee sweep through them with impunity and 100% immunity to weapon's fire. This is no longer a factor: As you can march around as a tangled blob, have one squad get engaged, then shrug your shoulders as they freely walk out of combat on the next turn. Or, if that squad is cut down, the fearsome melee combatants simply stand there with teeth bared so you can leisurely blow them off the table in the subsequent turn.

And that's without even touching on a myriad other factors such as how previous terrain rules made positioning and maneuvering a huge factor for determining firing lanes, cross-fire (an actual rule that existed in 3rd edition - that's right, you were rewarded for pincering enemy units with guns!), and fall back & sweeping advance (another example of being rewarded for pincering).

I'm not trying to say 40k has ever been especially deep; GW has always used complexity to try and disguise the game's kiddie-pool depth. But 9th has traded in the kiddie pool for a gak-smeared puddle, and trying to pretend it's not noticeably more shallow than previous editions is either hugely ignorant or incredibly dishonest.

With the possible exception of GSC, who are the only arm actually rewarded for positioning in ways beyond getting to fire their guns or roll to try and charge. They're an example of what 40k could potentially look like if GW wanted to write some semi-competent rules on a few slightly larger napkins.

^well argued. +1

 Mezmorki wrote:
If you liked the older editions and have willing players, just go back and play the older editions.

Oh, I have. I'm building a new group of 2nd ed. players. Very exciting!

But I am curious as to the state of the current game. That's why I don't want to rehash 3rd ed. arguments, I want to hear what you all think.

I do want to emphasize other points made here that contribute to current edition woes. Faster movement, bigger armies, and smaller boards makes for a worse experience. Armies are too big with too much redundancies built in and too much opportunity for alpha strikes being able to knock out key units in an opponents army. Given a similar relative amount of terrain, bigger armies on smaller boards are going to be lethal and more about "trading up" as mentioned earlier. A more dense and crowded playing field means there are simply less viable places to move and less strategies that can stem from that.

What is an "average" game look like in terms of models? Point values have radically changed over the years so that means nothing to me. There seems to be an alternate system as well (power level?).

Anyhow, by way of example, in my last game the point value was 1,500 points and I fielded 16 Chaos Marines, 3 Rhinos, a Predator, and six bikes. The Eldar player had a grav tank, dreadnought, 6 jetbikes, 2 Vypers and about 20 infantry. The board was pretty open because we were doing a meeting engagement in the wilderness, but there were lots of trees and hills to cut LOS and provide cover.

How does that stack up now? How much bigger are the model counts for a quick game?

How many models?

As a Marine player who tends towards "Power armor swarm" I'll field 70-80 Marines in a 2k pointer, no problem.

Playing Tyranids, I think in 8th I was pushing 60ish Tyranid Warriors around. (The 2nd ed models, too!)

The game is actively punishing to real hordes though. I have 120 Gaunts that I could fit in an army easily, but it's not a good investment of points.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
If you liked the older editions and have willing players, just go back and play the older editions.

Oh, I have. I'm building a new group of 2nd ed. players. Very exciting!

But I am curious as to the state of the current game. That's why I don't want to rehash 3rd ed. arguments, I want to hear what you all think.

I do want to emphasize other points made here that contribute to current edition woes. Faster movement, bigger armies, and smaller boards makes for a worse experience. Armies are too big with too much redundancies built in and too much opportunity for alpha strikes being able to knock out key units in an opponents army. Given a similar relative amount of terrain, bigger armies on smaller boards are going to be lethal and more about "trading up" as mentioned earlier. A more dense and crowded playing field means there are simply less viable places to move and less strategies that can stem from that.

What is an "average" game look like in terms of models? Point values have radically changed over the years so that means nothing to me. There seems to be an alternate system as well (power level?).

Anyhow, by way of example, in my last game the point value was 1,500 points and I fielded 16 Chaos Marines, 3 Rhinos, a Predator, and six bikes. The Eldar player had a grav tank, dreadnought, 6 jetbikes, 2 Vypers and about 20 infantry. The board was pretty open because we were doing a meeting engagement in the wilderness, but there were lots of trees and hills to cut LOS and provide cover.

How does that stack up now? How much bigger are the model counts for a quick game?

If one of those 16 chaos marines is the Lord HQ...
960 points for Chaos.

930 points of Eldar (adding a Farseer for an HQ).

There's some differences in force org positions.
Wraithlords are an elite choice now.
Chaos would get absolutely stomped in this match up in 9th.

@morganfreeman: Excellent post. Exalted.

 morganfreeman wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Current 40k has one real tactic at play: Trade up.

That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.

While "trade up" is always something you want to do in any game, saying it's always been the only game in town is objectively false.

To give you a stupidly simple example: Spacing was critical in 3rd and 4th edition due to Sweeping Advance. If you didn't space your squads, you'd wind up having tooled out melee sweep through them with impunity and 100% immunity to weapon's fire.

How is that any different from spacing your squad out to avoid getting engaged in melee after a Consolidation move? 9th has way more movement agency than editions before 7th, which also means there are more opportunities to outplay your opponent in the Charge and Fight phase and ways to mitigate your opponent's opportunities by using good positioning in the Movement phase.

Crossfire might have been more well-designed because it wasn't as wide but compared to the depth of Stratagems and Secondaries I doubt it compares. It might be interesting to run some games of each of the first four editions that I missed. How many games would I need to experience the best of what each of those editions has to offer?

 vict0988 wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Current 40k has one real tactic at play: Trade up.

That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.

While "trade up" is always something you want to do in any game, saying it's always been the only game in town is objectively false.

To give you a stupidly simple example: Spacing was critical in 3rd and 4th edition due to Sweeping Advance. If you didn't space your squads, you'd wind up having tooled out melee sweep through them with impunity and 100% immunity to weapon's fire.

How is that any different from spacing your squad out to avoid getting engaged in melee after a Consolidation move? 9th has way more movement agency than editions before 7th, which also means there are more opportunities to outplay your opponent in the Charge and Fight phase and ways to mitigate your opponent's opportunities by using good positioning in the Movement phase.

In 9th combat doesn't pin you in the way that it did in 3-7. A unit could "hide in close combat" by advantageously sweeping through squads. In 9th a unit can consolidate into a new unit, but the unit can just move away and the assaulter can then be shot. There were particulars that changed from edition to edition, but I forget the details.

I don't see how the positioning in 9th is more sophisticated than in 3-4(5?). For one, the fixed charge distance in those editions mean that your careful maneuvering couldn't get blindsided by a lucky 10" charge, or fail by rolling double 1s. There was also a whole sub-game involving CC optimization via Initiative and casualty removal.

 vict0988 wrote:
Crossfire might have been more well-designed because it wasn't as wide but compared to the depth of Stratagems and Secondaries I doubt it compares. It might be interesting to run some games of each of the first four editions that I missed. How many games would I need to experience the best of what each of those editions has to offer?

The what?

Okaaay. Technically they do provide new options, but they're cumbersome af, inorganic, and a pita.

Crossfire was really simple. If a unit was forced to fall back, but could not do so because enemy models blocked the path, the unit was wiped out. (iirc)

Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.

I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.

There's a lot to criticize about 9th edition, but CC is far superior to 5th to 7th, because of alternations and things you as a player can do. Maneuvering in CC is very important while in prior editions it was just: roll according to initiative until you're dead or the game ends.

 vict0988 wrote:
Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.

I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.

All wargames are supposed to be something of a simulation. At the most abstract you have games like Go or Chess and at the other end things like Advanced Squad Leader. What I called "universal tactics" are things that I guess you would describe as "organic" insofar as people with any knowledge of the military art already know them, i.e. turning flanks is always a good idea. Same with catching a lightly-armored unit in the open with superior firepower.

So within my original question is the notion that the system is plausible. Does it reflect what we'd expect in an environment of high-tech weapons? Is it consistent with the fluff?

Melee combat is particularly difficult at the "large skirmish" scale. If a unit can just leave a melee, how would that work out in the real world? Do they just call a time out and stroll away? I assume most of us visualize them dropping their tails and running away in a panic. Is there any penalty for leaving a melee?

It is clear that 40k in its current form is not really recognizable to me.

Yeah. Just try "walking out" of a fistfigh IRL. Tell me how that works out for you.

Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.

Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.

Gods, I miss Raptors having Hit and Run.

 Haighus wrote:
Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.

Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.

Having something like that actually makes sense. Logically we can agree that it's a "universal rule" that getting stuck in melee combat is hard to get out of, but if you are super-agile or have this jet pack, it's easier.

So that's no longer the case?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.

Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.

Having something like that actually makes sense. Logically we can agree that it's a "universal rule" that getting stuck in melee combat is hard to get out of, but if you are super-agile or have this jet pack, it's easier.

So that's no longer the case?

Anything can just "walk out" of melee in 8th/9th. Just another reason it's a rules system.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.

I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.

All wargames are supposed to be something of a simulation. At the most abstract you have games like Go or Chess and at the other end things like Advanced Squad Leader. What I called "universal tactics" are things that I guess you would describe as "organic" insofar as people with any knowledge of the military art already know them, i.e. turning flanks is always a good idea. Same with catching a lightly-armored unit in the open with superior firepower.

So within my original question is the notion that the system is plausible. Does it reflect what we'd expect in an environment of high-tech weapons? Is it consistent with the fluff?

Melee combat is particularly difficult at the "large skirmish" scale. If a unit can just leave a melee, how would that work out in the real world? Do they just call a time out and stroll away? I assume most of us visualize them dropping their tails and running away in a panic. Is there any penalty for leaving a melee?

It is clear that 40k in its current form is not really recognizable to me.

Do you think the inability to flee from melee felt organic, hoping the AI would enable you to stay in melee? The penalty for falling back in 9th is doing nothing else that turn unless you're TITANIC and maybe even spending CP to escape encirclement. Here's a basic military tactic that I used last game, my opponent split his army in two during Movement, I focussed my army on one half and won the game. Placing units in position where they cannot be shot, but present an indirect threat to disincentivise trying to control objectives or take them back. Using terrain to protect your flanks and prevent your units from being overwhelmed. You can take out enemy units surrounding a CHARACTER to single out the CHARACTER. You can fall back from a position in the hopes your opponent will overextend and you can make a counterattack. You can use Reinforcements to encircle the enemy or to keep your valuable troops safe. Use high ground to get better line of sight. Use skirmishers to scout out enemy unit movements. Shock tactics and targeting enemy action monkeys. Raiding with elite troops. You can send small numbers of troops to delay an enemy advance instead of fighting them head-on. In a game with perfect information you can't have the same depth of tactics you'd otherwise have, but that was true for 5th as well. Adding overwatch, suppressive fire and meaningful morale mechanics are really good ideas. Curbing or removing Stratagems is a really good idea. I think saying 9th has no universal tactics is silly.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.

Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.

Having something like that actually makes sense. Logically we can agree that it's a "universal rule" that getting stuck in melee combat is hard to get out of, but if you are super-agile or have this jet pack, it's easier.

So that's no longer the case?

The only related general rule is that Aircraft can fall back and shoot, all units with jetpacks and hover vehicles were able to do it in 8th, but that's a pain in the butt to play against with a melee army, now the only benefit from having FLY is that you can jump out from an encirclement without having to spend the command point resource. Do you want units with FLY to act like melee screen or do you want the the main benefit of FLY to be mobility across terrain features? GW could change fall back and shoot to being for all fast units, but fast units can already move further while falling back, getting to safety or setting up for future action.

 vict0988 wrote:
I think saying 9th has no universal tactics is silly.

It's interesting hearing the various opinions on it. I think part of the discussion centers on things one could do, that one now can't do. If you operate under the assumption that a certain play style matches your idea of reality and incorporates the fluff properly, any deviation becomes a problem.

This may sound strange coming from a guy who plays a game with templates that scatter on a miss and has all manner of detail, but it sounds like the current version is a lot more complicated. Org tables, stratagems, special rules and three times as many factions has got to make it hard to wrap one's arms around.

 vict0988 wrote:
Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.

Well no, it wasn't random. It was up to dice rolls, but because you can bring factors to bear on the rolls, it's not random. If you outnumbered or out-killed the opponent. If you purposefully witheld full contact in the CC phase. If you brought certain wargear to the fight to adjust Ld, etc. Those options provide the depth.

I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.

Some amount of "inorganic" is fine. Layers upon layers is less fine. "Organic" in this case meaning, I would say, arising from interactions between well-understood core mechanics. Everybody understands the groundwork of the core mechanics, and minor alterations for flavor should be ok. There are few "gotchas" because everybodys mechanics are similar enough, even if balanced very differently.

But when you get special rules on top of special rules, exceptions to the exceptions, you gotta be real careful about how you're implementing things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Do you think the inability to flee from melee felt organic, hoping the AI would enable you to stay in melee? The penalty for falling back in 9th is doing nothing else that turn unless you're TITANIC and maybe even spending CP to escape encirclement.

It makes sense to be unable to flee close assault without serious repricussions. And as I understand it, in historic times the most casualties were inflicted when one party breaks cohesion and runs. Pre-8th editions reflect this.

Here's a basic military tactic that I used last game . . .

I for one would not say basic tactics don't exist in modern 40k.

I would say, however, that many previously available, more "organic" tactics have been removed in favor of Strats. I can't assault Vehicles with Krak grenades. I can't fire out of vehicles or take cover behind wrecks. I can't blow Smoke accross all my transports as I rush-assault the opponent.

And there are fewer hard decisions to make. If I can move and fire with Heavy weapons with little penalty, or fire Rapid Fire weapons and Assault freely afterwards, it at once makes my decisions easier, but at the same time reduces differentiating characteristics between units, effectively shrinking the design space.

That decision making has been shifted to "What Strat do I use when?", and "What Strats do I expect my opponent to use?" Which feels to be a layer removed from the capabilities of the units themselves.

"no holding back!" - 5th edition core rules on assaulting, but maybe I'm forgetting something or you're talking about 3rd and/or 4th only. I think we agree on a lot of things, I don't want 40k to have 500 Stratagems or for melta bombs to deal mortal wounds at the cost of CP.

I don't think Daemon saves are more stupid than Grey Knights having tonnes of instant death, which Tyranids but not Daemons were susceptible to. I wonder if Daemon saves were tested or if it was implemented based on bull-headed designer fiat.

 vict0988 wrote:
"no holding back!" - 5th edition core rules on assaulting, but maybe I'm forgetting something or you're talking about 3rd and/or 4th only.

Iirc, the move arose from the fixed charge distance anyways. You could just move one or two models within the 6" charge distance in the Movement Phase so only a few models would connect and swing in the Fight Phase.

I think we agree on a lot of things, I don't want 40k to have 500 Stratagems or for melta bombs to deal mortal wounds at the cost of CP.

I don't think Daemon saves are more stupid than Grey Knights having tonnes of instant death, which Tyranids but not Daemons were susceptible to. I wonder if Daemon saves were tested or if it was implemented based on bull-headed designer fiat.

I confess I don't know what this is about. Are "Daemon Saves" a new thing?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
"no holding back!" - 5th edition core rules on assaulting, but maybe I'm forgetting something or you're talking about 3rd and/or 4th only.

Iirc, the move arose from the fixed charge distance anyways. You could just move one or two models within the 6" charge distance in the Movement Phase so only a few models would connect and swing in the Fight Phase.

I think we agree on a lot of things, I don't want 40k to have 500 Stratagems or for melta bombs to deal mortal wounds at the cost of CP.

I don't think Daemon saves are more stupid than Grey Knights having tonnes of instant death, which Tyranids but not Daemons were susceptible to. I wonder if Daemon saves were tested or if it was implemented based on bull-headed designer fiat.

I confess I don't know what this is about. Are "Daemon Saves" a new thing?

Daemon saves are invulnerable saves that cannot be ignored by things that ignore invulnerable saves, except for that one Grey Knight WL trait which I think they updated to ignore Daemon saves. The value is also different between ranged and melee attacks to make Daemons less vulnerable to shooting.

 vict0988 wrote:
Do you think the inability to flee from melee felt organic, hoping the AI would enable you to stay in melee?

Characterizing the inherent randomness of a dice game as 'AI' or 'programming' seems weird. It's like asking if it feels organic when the 'AI' doesn't let my troops shoot the enemy (ie, I flubbed my to-hit dice). Yeah, sometimes the dice don't go your way and the thing you wanted doesn't happen- you have control over the odds, not the outcomes. As far as whether it was organic, well, having greatly limited control over units in hand-to-hand combat and, as the commander, basically having to just hope for the best seemed reasonable to me.

Worth noting that 3rd Ed actually had a provision for a unit to shoot at an enemy that Sweeping Advanced into them in a prior turn. It was clunky, but an acknowledgment that the 'hiding in melee' idea was more an artifact of the discrete IGOUGO turn system than a desirable/realistic mechanic. I wouldn't have been opposed to a voluntary fallback mechanic, but the ability in 9th to simply walk away with no consequence other than not being able to shoot/charge that turn does not feel like an organic mechanic.

 vict0988 wrote:
Here's a basic military tactic that I used last game, my opponent split his army in two during Movement, I focussed my army on one half and won the game. Placing units in position where they cannot be shot, but present an indirect threat to disincentivise trying to control objectives or take them back. Using terrain to protect your flanks and prevent your units from being overwhelmed. You can take out enemy units surrounding a CHARACTER to single out the CHARACTER. You can fall back from a position in the hopes your opponent will overextend and you can make a counterattack. You can use Reinforcements to encircle the enemy or to keep your valuable troops safe. Use high ground to get better line of sight. Use skirmishers to scout out enemy unit movements. Shock tactics and targeting enemy action monkeys. Raiding with elite troops. You can send small numbers of troops to delay an enemy advance instead of fighting them head-on.

My issue isn't that these concepts don't exist. It's that they feel borderline irrelevant. You put your troops in a cannot-be-shot position, and the next turn your opponent drops some deep strike troops with 100% reliable accuracy in the perfect position to smoke them, or just walks a unit into LOS and nukes them before they can respond because opportunity fire doesn't exist. You put a unit on the high ground, then your opponent waltzes out, pops a stratagem to boost firepower, and wipes it out because controlling the military ridge provides no defensive benefit. You use terrain to protect your flanks, but it doesn't impede enemy movement and your sergeant's outstretched arm is visible over the wall so the whole unit gets shot anyways.

I question the applicability of some of those, too. Scouting isn't a thing. Shock tactics amounts to stacking casualties against units that suffer from the lose-more morale system. The delaying actions I perform would be unrecognizable to a real-world commander, since they're not about forcing the enemy to slow an advance with fixing fire, but rather putting units physically in the way of the enemy so that the turn structure forces the enemy to waste their movement before they have a chance to shoot the sacrificial unit.

I 100% agree that saying that 40K has no universal tactics is silly. It's just I find the strongest universal tactics are 'gamey' gimmicks like tri-pointing, turn structure shenanigans, casualty removal, melee positioning, deep strike positioning (and screening), character (aura) positioning, conga-lining, exploiting consolidation moves, or optimizing force-multiplier special abilities; not the concepts you describe. The really crucial skills are artifacts of 40K's rules rather than universal military tactics.

 vict0988 wrote:

Daemon saves are invulnerable saves that cannot be ignored by things that ignore invulnerable saves, except for that one Grey Knight WL trait which I think they updated to ignore Daemon saves. The value is also different between ranged and melee attacks to make Daemons less vulnerable to shooting.

Oh yeah, those. Ugh. Yeah that's prime exceptions to exceptions territory.

 catbarf wrote:
The really crucial skills are artifacts of 40K's rules rather than universal military tactics.

That's a bingo, although I'd take it a step further because you could master the games "rules artifacts" and still be blindsided by a wombo-combo intersection of Strat+special rule.

 vict0988 wrote:
Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.

I'm only going to address this point, because it displays (another) fundamental lack of understanding for reality - or at least 40k as it has existed in reality - and therefor invalidates everything else you've tried to say.

First things first: In previous editions (3rd, 4th, and IIRC 5th), you couldn't "walk out" of combat. If a unit was exiting combat (either by failing a moral check or by choice) both players rolled 2d6 and compared the results, + the initiative of the units, to determine what happened. If the "fleeing" party had the higher roll they moved that many inches away towards their deployment zone board edge. If the "pursuing" party rolled higher then the "fleeing" unit was simply removed, having been caught and slaughtered to a man.

This is important for two reasons.

For starters, if a unit charged another and the unit receiving the charge didn't fall-back (nor did the attacker), then you spent the entire next turn hiding in combat. This meant that charging in your turn, not slaughtering the enemy unit, and then mopping up during your opponent's turn was advantageous to your melee guys. It was often times preferable to charge sub-optimal targets, even with sub-optimal chargers, just to avoid your enemy's shooting.

Secondly, Sweeping Advance. Sweeping Advance allowed a unit to roll 1d6 and move that many inches in any direction, including into base to base contact with enemy units. The caveat was that a unit could only perform a sweeping advance when they completely wiped out an opposing unit in combat, either killing them all in the combat itself or "catching" them when they tried to fall back and wiping them out.

This meant that spacing your units was absolutely critical even for assault armies. Poor positioning could result not only in being charged and 'tagged' via multi charges (which we literally have now), but also having melee run rampant through your poorly constructed lines being unshootable, preventing you from shooting, and denying you the ability to charge via advancing into your own melee units. Not factoring this in and playing around it was a fantastic way to almost immediately lose a game.

This is what I mean when I say that you can simple tool around in a "big tangle" in 9th. It is laughably easy to deny your opponent multi charges by incredibly basic positioning (bubble wrap). To the point where it's often ideal to have a weak unit that's sure to die soak the charge, as it denies your opponent the ability to consolidate into you at the end. But even if a player shows up with a critical deficiency of braincells and fails to do this, they can perform a consequence-free fall back in the next turn, with many armies / chapter tactics / stratagems even allowing that retreated unit to turn around and shoot.

To flatly address the rest of the points you've brought up: Stratagems, re-rolls, and the myriad other "gotcha" trap cards in modern 40k are no more tactics than putting together an army list. Having your shooty unit be extra-good at shooting for a turn is not a tactic. Having your fighty unit fight twice is not a tactic. Having a unit be harder to wound for a turn is not a tactic. These are math problems, simply resulting in a unit doing what it does but better at the cost of currency.

Meanwhile, spacing your army in such a way as to not allow the enemy to rip through you safely - or taking advantage of an opportunity to do that - is a tactic. Flanking enemy units and forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic. Choosing to tie units down with in-ideal targets - ergo tarpitting several carnifex's with a bunch of conscripts and a commissar - is a tactic. And those are all elements which 40k has had stripped away from it, piece by piece, until we're playing the gak-show of the modern game. Where "My unit is extra special better at what it did anyway, because I tapped my mana!" is considered a tactical play, and moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic.

Scouting out means DS denial, shock tactics means moving your army aggressively forwards to scare the enemy into a defensive playstyle. Morale is a joke, the game is too lethal, I am not a 9th edition fanboy.

 morganfreeman wrote:
both players rolled 2d6 and compared the results, + the initiative of the units

I'm only going to address this point because it displays (another) fundamental lack of understanding for reality - or at least 40k as it has existed in reality - and therefore invalidates everything else you've tried to say, each player rolled 1D6 + Initiative

 morganfreeman wrote:


First things first: In previous editions (3rd, 4th, and IIRC 5th), you couldn't "walk out" of combat. If a unit was exiting combat (either by failing a moral check or by choice) both players rolled 2d6 and compared the results, + the initiative of the units, to determine what happened. If the "fleeing" party had the higher roll they moved that many inches away towards their deployment zone board edge. If the "pursuing" party rolled higher then the "fleeing" unit was simply removed, having been caught and slaughtered to a man.

Which I personally thought was a terrible system for several reasons:

a) it implies that skilled combatants aren't capable of tactical retreat, that even when the choose to leave a fight rather than flee it's always a route and never a tactical disengagement, or that it's never a valid strategy to fall back; in D&D, they call that the Disengage Action and no one has ever claimed it was unrealistic or unfluffy.
b) 2d6 are so swingy that all but the most extreme initiative differences are mitigated
c) it kills me that people complain about morale causing deaths to attrition in 9th but fully endorse the all or nothing, wipe-out-an-entire-unit alternative

 morganfreeman wrote:

This is important for two reasons.

For starters, if a unit charged another and the unit receiving the charge didn't fall-back (nor did the attacker), then you spent the entire next turn hiding in combat. This meant that charging in your turn, not slaughtering the enemy unit, and then mopping up during your opponent's turn was advantageous to your melee guys. It was often times preferable to charge sub-optimal targets, even with sub-optimal chargers, just to avoid your enemy's shooting.

And this never seemed gamey to you? Like, two cops are walking a beat; one gets jumped before he has the chance to draw his weapon. Does he a) engage in a Michael Jackson style knife fight while tied to his opponent to prevent a disengagement, or b) shove the prick as hard as he can and back away with his guard up so that his partner, who has had plenty of time to prep the shot can simply shoot him in the face?

The answer is b) EVERY TIME. It's realistic, it's good strategy, it's tactical and it is exactly what I'd do... And any system that doesn't allow it to happen is immersion breaking, stupid and gamey. It may have been fun as hell in its day, and you may have preferred it, and that's perfectly valid... But let's not pretend it's objectively better or more fluffy.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Secondly, Sweeping Advance. Sweeping Advance allowed a unit to roll 1d6 and move that many inches in any direction, including into base to base contact with enemy units. The caveat was that a unit could only perform a sweeping advance when they completely wiped out an opposing unit in combat, either killing them all in the combat itself

Sweeping advance still exists since you can consolidate into engagement range, the difference is that the person you are engaged with can do what any sane and rational person would do- step away while defending yourself so your friends with guns can wipe them out in a volley.

It is now necessary for a melee attacker to use skill, strategy, cover and coordination with other units rather than relying on a gamey mechanic that allows them to hop from one unit to another like a checker skating from one side of the board to the other to declare "king me" upon reaching the other side.

 morganfreeman wrote:

This meant that spacing your units was absolutely critical even for assault armies. Poor positioning could result not only in being charged and 'tagged' via multi charges (which we literally have now), but also having melee run rampant through your poorly constructed lines being unshootable, preventing you from shooting, and denying you the ability to charge via advancing into your own melee units. Not factoring this in and playing around it was a fantastic way to almost immediately lose a game.

It's sounds like you're praising two things that 9th is frequently criticized for- gotcha moments and immediately losing a game. And worse, this is a mistake that a player only makes once- positioning a unit 6.1" away from every other allied unit doesn't really take as much tactical acumen as you seem to think it does. So the whole argument kinda comes across as "Yeah, I liked the game better when the rules prevented you from doing what anyone would do in a real fight because it was easier to tool up the gun lines of newbs with a single squad of Marines (who never fail morale) or Eldar (the Initiative gods)."

 morganfreeman wrote:

This is what I mean when I say that you can simple tool around in a "big tangle" in 9th. It is laughably easy to deny your opponent multi charges by incredibly basic positioning (bubble wrap).

Bubble wrapping takes WAY more skill, tactical acumen and requires far more "Hard Choices" than simply assuring that every unit is 6.1" from every allied unit, which is the very epitome of "incredibly basic positioning."

 morganfreeman wrote:

To the point where it's often ideal to have a weak unit that's sure to die soak the charge, as it denies your opponent the ability to consolidate into you at the end.

Again, it doesn't because you can consolidate into engagement range- giving you a guaranteed 3.9" sweeping advance instead of a random 1-6" sweeping advance; the difference is now there's no artificial rule preventing the engaged squad from doing the tactically wise thing- backing away from you so that their friends can punish you for bringing knives to a gun fight.

So they use strategy including positioning, sacrificial units, cover, aura effects and strats to make it challenging for you to assault them and you use strategy including multi-charges, multi-unit coordination, cover, aura effects and strats to face that challenge.

 morganfreeman wrote:

But even if a player shows up with a critical deficiency of braincells and fails to do this,

Again, more likely just a newb

 morganfreeman wrote:

they can perform a consequence-free fall back in the next turn, with many armies / chapter tactics / stratagems even allowing that retreated unit to turn around and shoot.

The fall back isn't consequence free; it either prevents the retreating unit from shooting/charging, limits them to one or the other, or forces them to burn a limited resource in order to act in an extraordinary manner and do something that they couldn't typically do.

The greater problem for you is your opponent's OTHER units, which DON'T face consequences for the tactical retreat of their allied units. This is why it is incumbent upon you as an attacker to actually mitigate the potential for those units to retaliate as part of your strategy, rather than simply exploit a tar-pit rule to tool up a newb who doesn't yet know the 6.1" rule.

 morganfreeman wrote:

To flatly address the rest of the points you've brought up: Stratagems, re-rolls, and the myriad other "gotcha" trap cards in modern 40k are no more tactics than putting together an army list.

Command points are a limited resource, and more importantly each strat can only be used once in a turn. Your newb-slaying tar-pit gotcha on the other hand can be used (exploited?) by every unit in your army. And in terms of resource usage, consider that strats are best saved for purposes related to victory conditions. Attacking isolated units via deep strike, reinforcements, hit and run or other tactics to bait an opponent into using a strat prematurely and denying that ability to the units holding objectives or performing actions, or depleting their CP pool is WAY more tactical than "Nuh-uh! My base touches yours, so every gun in your army is useless..."

 morganfreeman wrote:

Having your shooty unit be extra-good at shooting for a turn is not a tactic. Having your fighty unit fight twice is not a tactic.

It is when you have to choose whether to do it in order to mitigate the effectiveness of the bubble-wrap counter shooters when a unit retreats from your melee specialists, or to achieve an objective, or to defend yourself against an incoming melee threat... Because you can use it to do ONE of those things per turn but not all three.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Having a unit be harder to wound for a turn is not a tactic.

Really? Because it looks to me like it could be a valuable part of your strategy to survive when a unit you've assaulted retreats so their friends can shoot you.

 morganfreeman wrote:

These are math problems, simply resulting in a unit doing what it does but better at the cost of currency.

The limit to a single use of a particular buff per use has far greater tactical/ strategic impact that than the resource cost. In fact, it's one of those hard choices I keep hearing 9th doesn't include.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Meanwhile, spacing your army in such a way as to not allow the enemy to rip through you safely - or taking advantage of an opportunity to do that - is a tactic.

What's tactical about either of these things? Anyone can do them under any circumstances, without any cost or thought because always makes sense to do both of them. I mean, even if I accepted the premise that strats and command points are a math problem (and I don't), at least they would involve some thought. By contrast, these two "tactics" are things that every player learns to do in their very first game, and then just does them every game thereafter.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Flanking enemy units and forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic. Choosing to tie units down with in-ideal targets - ergo tarpitting several carnifex's with a bunch of conscripts and a commissar - is a tactic. And those are all elements which 40k has had stripped away from it, piece by piece, until we're playing the gak-show of the modern game. Where "My unit is extra special better at what it did anyway, because I tapped my mana!" is considered a tactical play, and moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic.

You do realize that saying "forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic." and "moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic." in the same paragraph is problematic, right? Especially when it so favoured two particular armies- marines, because they seldom break, and eldar because they win the initiative contest. And not just some units, and not just once per turn. Just "I'm always better at scaring whole squads to death than you because of the army I choose to play".

Now look, I may have been a bit more agro than intended- I do take your point. It is true that strats do make the game feel like a CCG, and I get how that's not as fun for folks who prefer wargames. It's true that the learning curve is steeper due to the amount of bespoke content. It's true that rule-stacking/ combination plays feel gamey. Preferring earlier editions is a perfectly valid point of view.

I do, however, take exception to the idea that one version is objectively "better" (what a vague, unmeasurable term) than the other, or that using bubble wrap vs. 6.1" spacing is more or less organic or tactical. And I very specifically disagree that a moral system that allows you to destroy an entire unit is superior to one in which a few extra models are destroyed, especially when it's just inherently easier for some armies to do and inherently harder to do it to some armies. To say that one of these systems is more KEEL MOAR than the other is certainly of base. The truth is that the systems are similar in a lot of ways, and neither is particularly good.