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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You could skip AA and just have a damage phase like Apoc that way units can still act before removing models, but...that would make the game deadlier as well since more models will do more shooting ( and will skew away from melee ), so maybe not...

I'd be curious about testing that, but I doubt it would give you quite as much benefit as it does in Apoc, because in Apoc there's no distinction between one successful wound and another, so you actually withhold taking saves until the end of the turn, which leads to the person targeting them needing to go for overkill (never know when that unit of marines you just must have dead is going to make their 6+sv against that single big blast, so you need to put extra blasts onto them to be sure). If you tested that as a patch on current 40k, the game would actually be probably deadlier, since you'd be left with a bunch of models that are 'guaranteed dead' at the end of the turn, and you know they'll be useless for holding objectives so you'd just kamikaze them into the enemy as best you could.

Unless you tried to track the AP and Damage of each successful wound on a unit and then have saves and damage resolution occur at the end, but that'd be incredibly tough to do.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Strategy is the plan
Tactics is how you accomplish the plan

Building your list is a tactic. Why you are building your list is the strategy.

Playing the game is a tactic. Why you are playing the game is a strategy.

"I have to deploy in cover" is a strategy. Selecting a unit of Intercessors and placing them in cover is the tactic.

"I need to take that objective to score points" is a strategy. Selecting a unit, moving them onto the objective is the tactic.

"That big grubin' is gonna slaughter my army unless I shoot it first" is a strategy. Using a Devastator squad to shoot the model off the table is a tactic.

You're 10 pages late, we've already defined strategy as "bad, infantile, frivolous" and everything in 40k as "strategy" and tactics as "good, smart, galaxy brained, amazing" and everything in Game I Like.

Yeah, unfortunately on this forum, everything that was worth writing and reading about happens in the first three pages or so. After that, it's just circular arguments, attacks, and defense. LOL Just felt like I needed to add my US$0.02.

I haven't even played a game of 9th edition yet. If I went by what I read here, 9th edition is a disaster and the worst yet. Still, when things loosen up and I get my vaccination, I look forward to playing my first game of 9th!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You could skip AA and just have a damage phase like Apoc that way units can still act before removing models, but...that would make the game deadlier as well since more models will do more shooting ( and will skew away from melee ), so maybe not...

This only works in Apoc for 2 reasons. 1 tokens. 2 moving away from a model to unit focus into a unit to unit focus.

So for 1 we need tokens. Not really a big deal just something to consider.

And for 2 the stat lines of the units need to be redesigned to stop being a models stat line and start being a units stat line. Which btw, I am all for. 40k is too big to have it's focus on individual models. It's basically complete nonsense at this point.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I haven't even played a game of 9th edition yet. If I went by what I read here, 9th edition is a disaster and the worst yet. Still, when things loosen up and I get my vaccination, I look forward to playing my first game of 9th!

By the core rules, I'd say 9th edition is the best one yet! The main mission structure is excellent. It forces a kind of game where the values of units MASSIVELY thrown out of whack. Like, Lictors are good. Not because they kill anything, but because it can deep strike as a single model that doesn't have the Character keyword. Taking triple Repulsors is bad because they don't have Obsec and can't do actions. Tons of stratagems and powers that were useless before have real value now. I find most people I've spoken with in person over a game compliment it on just how much more you interact with your opponent compared to previous editions.

There are weaknesses, but I feel that's because no missions are end-of-turn scoring, just start-of-turn scoring, and we're not getting updates as fast as in 8th due to the 'rona, but those are pretty minor at this point. The challenge of figuring out how to get ahead of your opponent is really great

 Yarium wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
I haven't even played a game of 9th edition yet. If I went by what I read here, 9th edition is a disaster and the worst yet. Still, when things loosen up and I get my vaccination, I look forward to playing my first game of 9th!

By the core rules, I'd say 9th edition is the best one yet! The main mission structure is excellent. It forces a kind of game where the values of units MASSIVELY thrown out of whack. Like, Lictors are good. Not because they kill anything, but because it can deep strike as a single model that doesn't have the Character keyword. Taking triple Repulsors is bad because they don't have Obsec and can't do actions. Tons of stratagems and powers that were useless before have real value now. I find most people I've spoken with in person over a game compliment it on just how much more you interact with your opponent compared to previous editions.

There are weaknesses, but I feel that's because no missions are end-of-turn scoring, just start-of-turn scoring, and we're not getting updates as fast as in 8th due to the 'rona, but those are pretty minor at this point. The challenge of figuring out how to get ahead of your opponent is really great

Tripple repulsors is bad because they are wildly overcosted.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Still, when things loosen up and I get my vaccination, I look forward to playing my first game of 9th!

Just be sure to approach it like a whole new edition. Some things are quite a bit different.

I think AA just fundamentally changes the game to the point its hard to talk about.

Intuitively for example someone with 5 mega units is going to have shot their army half way through someone with 10 cheaper ones.
Now you could I guess say that's the second player is still better off than the first player just going first - but they could hide their forces to limit their opponent. If we are all moving together that's more difficult. (I don't know how Grimdark Future or any other system does it.)

Moreover as see it you would compounding the theory that 40k can be reduced to a flow chart. You'd fire your most damaging gun, and they'd probably do the same and you rotate from there. If you don't fire your most damaging gun you risk it being shot and degraded (if not wiped entirely). Basically as you see with the assault phase.

Setting aside what types of decisions are strategic vs. tactical, I think looking at "decisions that matter" across the whole arc of the game are worth laying out:

LIST BUILDING
- Understand mission objectives in the set being played - choosing mix of unit roles best poised to succeed in the objective

PLANNING & DEPLOYMENT
- Aggressive deployment (playing up to move quicker onto objectives)
- Defensive deployment (deploying out of sight, reactionary)
- Infiltrator positioning (field onto objectives, counter-players for disruption based on opponent's deployment)

MANEUVERS & POSITIONING
- Deepstrike (drop onto objectives vs backline vs secondary objective support)
- Reserves (where to bring on - flank support, backline disruption)
- Screening maneuvers (using vehicles, other models to block LoS on advance to protect key units)
- Leveraging terrain (cover, LoS blocking on advance)
- Securing objectives (force committal, how much needed to hold/maintain, timing of when to push on objectives)
- Modeling positioning (tri-pointing, etc.)

COMMAND POINTS
- Points Management (special powers vs. responsiveness using for re-rolling critical failures)

ATTACKS
- Fire Order (threat priority and target priority)
- Close combat engagement
- Casualty removal decisions (keep/remove specialists, removal to eliminate LoS/range, deny charge)
- Psychic power usage - where to use/concentrate powers

==================================================

I feel like the above captures where most of the decision points exist in the game. There is a layer of nuance or discussion that could be had on each of these topics. I agree with the critics here that there is likely a lot MORE to say about the items higher up on the list, and as you go down the list things become more and more straightforward. However, even these “straightforward” decisions require a body of experience. I’ve been playing some 40K with younger and newer players, and there are some hard lessons being learned about really basic stuff. I.e. moving into the open to an objective (while shooting) versus staying back in cover to stay alive (while shooting) and when to do one or the other.

==================================================

I'll also throw out that I recognize that older editions (and in particular my own ProHammer project) inject relatively MORE decision making points at the lower levels in the list above. In no particular order:

* More mission diversity to require more diverse / less singularly optimized lists
* Scoring shift to emphasize later turns, opening up tactical space in the early turns for more maneuver
* Alternating deployment process, allows for more back-and-forth deployment decisions
* Old-school overwatch - key decision in shooting now or delaying in hopes of more advantageous shooting later
* First fire (if unit didn't move) to prevent reactive fire (see below)
* Go To Ground option for units hit by enemy fire - boosts cover save
* Reactive fire option (shoot in response to being shot or charge declared, but suffer close combat and next turn shooting penalties)
* Declared fire - requires committing to a fire plan and making tougher calls. Lessens ability to optimize fire order.
* Charge reactions (as per reactive fire)
* Vehicle Armor Facings - reinforces micro-maneuvering tradeoffs & decisions to leverage an advantage (at cost of being in worse position)
* Morale phase choices for pursuit vs. consolidation
* Variability of moving through terrain

I would note that some of those things...like Variability of Moving Through Terrain...are not choices. They're just random. They're the complaint I have with random charge distance, and I would argue, actually REDUCE complexity, because there's always a chance that you roll a 2, then reroll a 2, when your close combat unit is 4" away from the enemy.

I'm also not a huge fan of massively variable missions for that reason. Sure, in theory, it causes you to have to build a more diverse list.

So how do I plan ahead for a mission that involves killing units, if I'm playing Orks and my opponent is playing Custodes? I'm never not going to have more units than my opponent by a factor of 2 at least. Conversely if we randomly roll a mission with like 8 objectives on the board, my opponent is most likely totally fethed no matter how hard he tries to run "MSU Custodes". Or insert grey knights, or whatever, here.

You have to be really careful when you design variable missions that you don't remove games being decided beforehand and add in games being decided at the table...but just randomly based on a single die roll at the beginning of the game.

Necromunda is kinda like this, but it's fundamentally a campaign system. Even if you literally cannot possibly win the mission, conceding rather than fighting out a losing battle is a big trade-off because you'll fall behind on experience gain for your units.

I could probably throw some additional items up there:

- Safe vs Risky Decisions; when to do the reliable play that leaves a chance at losing, and when to do the unreliable play that gives a chance at winning.

- Gambler's Fallacy; when to stop investing into something that used to be a good decision.

- Baiting; Dangle that worm, see if someone bites.

the_scotsman wrote:
I would note that some of those things...like Variability of Moving Through Terrain...are not choices. They're just random. They're the complaint I have with random charge distance, and I would argue, actually REDUCE complexity, because there's always a chance that you roll a 2, then reroll a 2, when your close combat unit is 4" away from the enemy.

I get that. At the same time, part of what makes 40K and keep players on their toes is how "random" outcomes can force the player to have to adapt to a new/unexpected situation. It prevents games from being programmable (i.e. ideal optimizations, flow charts, etc.) because a couple bad roles can leave you in a difficult spot and force you to adapt your plans. One of the problems with the current game is that too much luck mitigation undermines this element. As with all things, there are areas where luck/randomness work better or worse. I hate random charge distance for example - but don't mind random movement through difficult terrain.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm also not a huge fan of massively variable missions for that reason. Sure, in theory, it causes you to have to build a more diverse list.

So how do I plan ahead for a mission that involves killing units, if I'm playing Orks and my opponent is playing Custodes? I'm never not going to have more units than my opponent by a factor of 2 at least. Conversely if we randomly roll a mission with like 8 objectives on the board, my opponent is most likely totally fethed no matter how hard he tries to run "MSU Custodes". Or insert grey knights, or whatever, here.

Well, there has to be some thought to the mission design to make sure most armies have some viable way to accomplish the mission, or force a draw in which case results are determined based on secondaries or whatever.

I also think there is opportunity to tie the mission selection process to use of command points, or other measures. For example, maybe players determine 3 missions that are in the pool of choices, and each player gets to eliminate one option - leaving a mission that both players are relatively more comfortable with. Or doing things like bidding command points for the right to select a mission category - and then your opponent gets to pick the specific mission, or gets to pick sides, etc.

 Mezmorki wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I would note that some of those things...like Variability of Moving Through Terrain...are not choices. They're just random. They're the complaint I have with random charge distance, and I would argue, actually REDUCE complexity, because there's always a chance that you roll a 2, then reroll a 2, when your close combat unit is 4" away from the enemy.

I get that. At the same time, part of what makes 40K and keep players on their toes is how "random" outcomes can force the player to have to adapt to a new/unexpected situation. It prevents games from being programmable (i.e. ideal optimizations, flow charts, etc.) because a couple bad roles can leave you in a difficult spot and force you to adapt your plans.

This is not true. Yes, the randomness of the outcome can force your flowchart to adjust at the next decision point but it doesn't stop it from being a flow chart and it very rarely has enough of an impact that it actually changes anything. For one, the randomness of the dice doesn't change the decision you already made. For two, it's not like you can redo the move you made with the unit in the last phase. They are ALREADY commited to their position and need to shoot at their optimal targets when their turn to shoot comes up. Maybe the bad rolls means they have to double up on the target you didn't kill as many as you would have liked instead of the other target. But that isn't any less programmable or flow chart-y.

One of the problems with the current game is that too much luck mitigation undermines this element. As with all things, there are areas where luck/randomness work better or worse. I hate random charge distance for example - but don't mind random movement through difficult terrain.

Randomness is completely counter to player agency. Some RNG is a good thing. But it's more about where and how it is applied than anything. Random movement? No. Just have a flat movement penalty.

How about dropping rerolls?

I feel that would mitigate a bunch of bs around decreasing randomness with rerolls.

But then morons would complain about how they can't change outcomes.....

Racerguy180 wrote:
How about dropping rerolls?

I feel that would mitigate a bunch of bs around decreasing randomness with rerolls.

But then morons would complain about how they can't change outcomes.....

That would help. Most games feature some kind of resource management for modifiers (through things like Focus points to boost attacks in Warmachine, or tokens in X-Wing) or force decisions like committing to not moving to get your improved shots (Epic does this with its Sustain Fire order, for example). In 40k you don't risk anything or giving anything up for your modifiers and they tend to be much more powerful than in other games. Removing those modifiers would at least make outcomes less certain. Right now it feels like the results of most important dice rolls aren't random at all because of how powerful modifiers are.

I'll cite an example from a game I finished last night (admittedly using ProHammer).

I was playing a Feral Ork list (3rd ed) versus a fairly balanced Imperial Guard list (6th ed). Basic setup was that I needed to prevent the IG player from blowing up 3 or more (out of 6) objective markers. I don't need to go into all the nuances of the setup...

The basic crux of the challenge I was facing, especially as "defending" orks is that if I didn't deal with his tanks, they were going to shoot me to ribbons and probably table me and have free reign to do the objective. But alternatively, I could focus on taking out his scoring units (infantry type models/units) in enough places that he wouldn't have enough bodies left to set the charges and hold it for the required turn to set it off.

I had four blobs of boar units, very mobile, but can only really hurt the tanks by getting around to the sides/rear where the stronger nobs could deal damage in melee. I had a few rokkit laucher's scattered to help, but it wasn't much to be honest (krak missiles with ork BS front 14 front armor isn't a great situation). I also had to contend with the fact that my boars were actually all cyboars, which means if I go into difficult terrain on a 1-3 roll the model dies.

Long story short, the entire game was a turn-by-turn reassessment of how to balance keeping the tanks stunned/shocked (at a minimum) to enable other units to try and tie down infantry (who were mostly hiding in their damn Chimeras). The whole thing was, well, a tactical dance of sorts - my opponent shifting the position of his tanks to deny me a flank and spread my units out so that I couldn't attack the tanks and the infantry at the same time. Meanwhile, I'm trying to position squggoths to block the route to objective markers and clog up the board. He's dancing his infantry into difficult terrain (which happened to be a bunch of swamps) in an effort to get my boars to kill themselves should they try to charge in. The timing of when he pushed an objective was a bit agonizing for him.

Long story short - maybe I'm just an idiot by some people's reckoning - but I never felt like there were ONLY obvious moves to make. Sure, some moves are relatively straight forward and clear. But I'd probably have 3-4 units each turn where there were equally compelling options open to them, with equally challenging and difficult to crack obstacles and RISKS associated with each. I was blind-sided by a few of my opponent's moves, such as when he slipped a leman russ out between some units and landed a long-range shelling half-way across the board, completely changing the balance of power near one of the objective markers.

Maybe this all feels (or is) more tactical because ProHammer and older editions simply had more of this opportunity in the design. I don't know.

In general, I think a design that's less lethal overall definitely has some merits to it. When there's more need to move around the board, more need to interact with targets without being assured of their removal, there's more opportunity to interact with an opponent throughout the game.

But I think the core structures of the rules of older editions actually make things less, not more, tactical.

Random movement, and ESPECIALLY old style dangerous terrain tests for vehicles/bikers, are a great example of that. A highly random roll that results in any vehicle, no matter what size, being permanently immobilized for the entire game just on a single D6 roll.

The old VDT works similarly. It's the problem with "D6 shots, D6 damage" weapons in the current game and why 9th has been moving away from them. If you roll a 6 for shots, then a bunch of 6s for damage, you instantly obliterate whatever you pointed the weapon at. If you roll a 1 for shots, regardless of whether you targeted the correct thing, your weapon doesn't do anything.

Mitigation of randomness is not the culprit for decreased tactical-ness of the game.The more random a system is, the more balanced it can be, sure. But then the game just becomes more of a "throw stuff down and see what happens" system, rather than a tactical wargame. A coinflip is perfectly balanced, but self-evidently non-tactical. A game of Diplomacy is intensely tactical, with every player having to constantly re-evaluate their position with every turn, but it's totally non-random.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And also, to explain my own bias here:

I prefer a more random 40k game, personally. I dislike the microboard and the new missions and find them dull and samey, even if it's a fun exercise to parse out the strategy of various competitive lists. I'm all for the simulationist fun of "see what happens" and enjoy the general concept of vehicle damage tables and the like.

I just don't think they're tactical, and I think adding back in something like random movement into the game and thinking to yourself "I am adding in more tactical decision making" is a mistake.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'll cite an example from a game I finished last night (admittedly using ProHammer).

I was playing a Feral Ork list (3rd ed) versus a fairly balanced Imperial Guard list (6th ed). Basic setup was that I needed to prevent the IG player from blowing up 3 or more (out of 6) objective markers. I don't need to go into all the nuances of the setup...

The basic crux of the challenge I was facing, especially as "defending" orks is that if I didn't deal with his tanks, they were going to shoot me to ribbons and probably table me and have free reign to do the objective. But alternatively, I could focus on taking out his scoring units (infantry type models/units) in enough places that he wouldn't have enough bodies left to set the charges and hold it for the required turn to set it off.

I had four blobs of boar units, very mobile, but can only really hurt the tanks by getting around to the sides/rear where the stronger nobs could deal damage in melee. I had a few rokkit laucher's scattered to help, but it wasn't much to be honest (krak missiles with ork BS front 14 front armor isn't a great situation). I also had to contend with the fact that my boars were actually all cyboars, which means if I go into difficult terrain on a 1-3 roll the model dies.

Long story short, the entire game was a turn-by-turn reassessment of how to balance keeping the tanks stunned/shocked (at a minimum) to enable other units to try and tie down infantry (who were mostly hiding in their damn Chimeras). The whole thing was, well, a tactical dance of sorts - my opponent shifting the position of his tanks to deny me a flank and spread my units out so that I couldn't attack the tanks and the infantry at the same time. Meanwhile, I'm trying to position squggoths to block the route to objective markers and clog up the board. He's dancing his infantry into difficult terrain (which happened to be a bunch of swamps) in an effort to get my boars to kill themselves should they try to charge in. The timing of when he pushed an objective was a bit agonizing for him.

Long story short - maybe I'm just an idiot by some people's reckoning - but I never felt like there were ONLY obvious moves to make. Sure, some moves are relatively straight forward and clear. But I'd probably have 3-4 units each turn where there were equally compelling options open to them, with equally challenging and difficult to crack obstacles and RISKS associated with each. I was blind-sided by a few of my opponent's moves, such as when he slipped a leman russ out between some units and landed a long-range shelling half-way across the board, completely changing the balance of power near one of the objective markers.

Maybe this all feels (or is) more tactical because ProHammer and older editions simply had more of this opportunity in the design. I don't know.

Lets stop referring to yourself, or others as idiots or implying that others are smarter (or think they are) or anything in any camp that is even remotely related to that. None of this discussion is personal. None of this discussion is referring to individuals and their abilities or lack there of.


In the situations you describe you do have choices that your opponent is presenting you with. A static game state at the end of their turn. You have the choices you can make. And most of those, the vast majority, are the illusion of choice. As you point out you can narrow the near infinite things all your units can do down to the things that actually help. Focusing on the tanks for long term survival or denying scoring troops for potential victory point advantage.

Forget the part where you feel like picking one or the other is not obvious to you.

Assessing this situation logically how would you go about assigning your values? Is there ANY other option for how you can intelligently make your "tactical" decisions besides weighing your options and doing the math? Even if you are unsure of the actual numbers and have to insert estimates into the equation, besides going with gut instinct or choosing blindly and recklessly, can you present to the thread any other method for picking what to do?

The game is ALREADY random as feth


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Ofc you try to make meaningful choices in all games but the time limit and the way the game works with scoring and killing changes what kind of decisions you can make. In many games you can set up moves for rewards later on and not focus as much on the current turn. In 40k "tactics" often comes down to "how do I score as much as possible this turn and kill as much of the opponent while doing so?". What you will actually do 1 or 2 turns later doesn't matter much compared to what you do NOW!

This limits any possible tactical depth. The decisions are still very important from turn to turn but each decision is usually very simple and short sighted, limited in scope.

Sorry man, your previous posts were interesting and made for good discussion, but this one is just wrong.

Like, 100% wrong.

In 40K you play your turn thinking one or 2 turns ahead. What happens during this turn doesn't really matter a lot, you may end up with almost zero points scored and no enemy units killed, but setting up a very good next turn.
You always have a general plan of how much you will score at the end of the game and how much he will score, and try to follow that as much as possible.
Thinking turn by turn in 9th just means being bad.

You don't really NEED to think ahead though. You know what your opponent brought. You already know whats in reserves. It isn't rocket science, let alone high school science.

If you think that knowing what your opponent's forces are is enough to make it "Not even high school science" to foresee your opponent movements, please show me your multiple chess world titles, its clear that you got lot of them.

Which by the way it wouldn't even prove your point, since planning in 40k is harder than planning in chess because what you want to do and what happens are not the same due to the nature of dice.

Difference with chess is the opponent is allowed to counter what I do. Show me what you're countering on your opponent's turn outside a few minimal Stratagems.

The fact that he is able to react (which you can do in 40K too, just in bigger batches), does in no way matter to his point.

He said that knowing what forces are on the table means that you don't need to think ahead.

Failed defense. Try again.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

40k is easy. Just get over it.

You know? This is the usual statement by someone who simply is bad at the game and doesn't want to admit it, so he prefers to think that he loses because his list/faction/units/luck/first turn suck.

But you know what? You have been saying stuff like "It's easy", "He is wrong" "Lol, that was obvious"... a bit too much.
Since everything is so easy to you, it means that you are truly a great player, much better than me! Please show us your GT wins or equivalent.

LOL you got a source for that buddy?

 Lance845 wrote:
In the situations you describe you do have choices that your opponent is presenting you with. A static game state at the end of their turn. You have the choices you can make. And most of those, the vast majority, are the illusion of choice. As you point out you can narrow the near infinite things all your units can do down to the things that actually help. Focusing on the tanks for long term survival or denying scoring troops for potential victory point advantage.

Forget the part where you feel like picking one or the other is not obvious to you.

Assessing this situation logically how would you go about assigning your values? Is there ANY other option for how you can intelligently make your "tactical" decisions besides weighing your options and doing the math? Even if you are unsure of the actual numbers and have to insert estimates into the equation, besides going with gut instinct or choosing blindly and recklessly, can you present to the thread any other method for picking what to do?

I agree with you that, conceptually, one can boil down this game (and a great many other games) to decision flow-charts and math to arrive at, in aggregate, the ideal lines of play to maximize your chance of success. As such, we could argue that all games - whether Chess, or 40K, or Diplomacy - present players with the illusion of choice because there is, as the end of the day, one statistically optimal way of playing the hand that's dealt to you. And if we're being comprehensive, the analysis of the game state would also include the psychology and disposition of your opponents (i.e. the actual humans involved) in the calculus as well.

But all of this misses the point inherent in the act of actually playing a game IMHO. The fact of the matter is that the game does pose the player with a lot of decision points (call them tactical decision points) where a player is prompted to do something with a unit or reevaluate how the unit's action fits into a plan that has changed in response to your opponent's moves or in response to randomness. As stated, many of these decisions it's easy to use heuristically knowledge to get down to an obvious move (well gee, my anti-squad only has one juicy target in LoS... fire away!) but other times it's less obvious. When it is less obvious it's often because it's sufficiently complex - either projecting the flow chart into the future turns or the math involved or both - that I have to make a gestalt judgement. I don't run anything more than a basic "gut check" feeling for odds and probabilities (I would never use a calculator during a game for example to math something out). On the flow chart side, it can become an exercise in some quick 'if-then' analysis .... if I move HERE, then my opponent would probably do X or Y on their turn, versus if I move THERE then they would do A or B. But there is a limit to how far that can go - or at least how far I can derive value out of doing it, given how the board statte can change so rapidly.

Call them what you want, but for me these decision points and the chaos that arises from it, and unexpected situations that arise are what I find enjoyable about the act of playing the game - versus list building and planning. I make decisions at both levels, there is room for mistakes and better/worse moves at both levels.

And honestly, I fail to see how the logic behind the criticism of 40k couldn't also apply to nearly any other game.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
In the situations you describe you do have choices that your opponent is presenting you with. A static game state at the end of their turn. You have the choices you can make. And most of those, the vast majority, are the illusion of choice. As you point out you can narrow the near infinite things all your units can do down to the things that actually help. Focusing on the tanks for long term survival or denying scoring troops for potential victory point advantage.

Forget the part where you feel like picking one or the other is not obvious to you.

Assessing this situation logically how would you go about assigning your values? Is there ANY other option for how you can intelligently make your "tactical" decisions besides weighing your options and doing the math? Even if you are unsure of the actual numbers and have to insert estimates into the equation, besides going with gut instinct or choosing blindly and recklessly, can you present to the thread any other method for picking what to do?

I agree with you that, conceptually, one can boil down this game (and a great many other games) to decision flow-charts and math to arrive at, in aggregate, the ideal lines of play to maximize your chance of success. As such, we could argue that all games - whether Chess, or 40K, or Diplomacy - present players with the illusion of choice because there is, as the end of the day, one statistically optimal way of playing the hand that's dealt to you.

Since this comparison with other games seems to just detract from the focus on 40ks tactics I would really rather we didn't get into them. My only note on that point is that it's not true based on 1 element. Interplayer interaction. Which 40k lacks. Once you are not playing against the dice and such you can't do that anymore. Like say... poker. You CAN play poker against a computer. But you can't BLUFF the computer. But Poker is almost exclusively inter player interaction and it is the one thing that gives the game all it's depth. You can't bluff in 40k. The player can't react to you to fall for a bluff. You either killed their things and accomplished your goal or you didn't.

And if we're being comprehensive, the analysis of the game state would also include the psychology and disposition of your opponents (i.e. the actual humans involved) in the calculus as well.

In other games where that is a part of the equation you can make estimates including that. 40k isn't one of them.

But all of this misses the point inherent in the act of actually playing a game IMHO. The fact of the matter is that the game does pose the player with a lot of decision points (call them tactical decision points) where a player is prompted to do something with a unit or reevaluate how the unit's action fits into a plan that has changed in response to your opponent's moves or in response to randomness. As stated, many of these decisions it's easy to use heuristically knowledge to get down to an obvious move (well gee, my anti-squad only has one juicy target in LoS... fire away!) but other times it's less obvious. When it is less obvious it's often because it's sufficiently complex - either projecting the flow chart into the future turns or the math involved or both - that I have to make a gestalt judgement. I don't run anything more than a basic "gut check" feeling for odds and probabilities (I would never use a calculator during a game for example to math something out). On the flow chart side, it can become an exercise in some quick 'if-then' analysis .... if I move HERE, then my opponent would probably do X or Y on their turn, versus if I move THERE then they would do A or B. But there is a limit to how far that can go - or at least how far I can derive value out of doing it, given how the board statte can change so rapidly.

Call them what you want, but for me these decision points and the chaos that arises from it, and unexpected situations that arise are what I find enjoyable about the act of playing the game - versus list building and planning. I make decisions at both levels, there is room for mistakes and better/worse moves at both levels.

And honestly, I fail to see how the logic behind the criticism of 40k couldn't also apply to nearly any other game.

And this is the crux of it.

The big difference is the player interactively. If I had more interaction with my actual opponent then that chaos would be actually tactical and not just logistics. But I don't. I interact with dice probabilities and when they swing wrong I adjust according to the games mechanics. Some other games are shallow too. The Game of Life certainly has very little tactical depth to it. But as was pointed out games with much simpler mechanics and way less pieces have WAY more depth (Terraforming mars) BECAUSE the players interact with and react to other players on so many levels at all times. Even Apocalypse has way more tactical depth despite being a "dumbed down" version of 40k for the same reason.

This is the lynch pin here. This is the thing that takes a game from being shallow and predictable versus deep and tactical.

Spoletta wrote:
Did you seriouly bring Goonhammer into this?

Yes.

You took a source which has DOZENS of articles on 40k tactics, and took out a few sentences regarding an obscure 40k gamemode to prove your point that tactics don't exist?

Most of their 'tactics' are things like here's how to tri-point, don't stand your screens so close to what they're protecting, here's the math proving that it's best to shoot x at y, etc. None of this stuff changes from game to game.

Read any of their write-ups about a winning list. Do you see any talk that isn't the broad-strokes of how the list works and what it wants to use each unit for? No, they simply don't dive turn by turn into games because they know they don't need to.

A GT has just been won by a player which brought a list which wasn't meta in the least. This player is known as one of the best 40K players, but this obviously doesn't count since this game is extremely easy and players don't make a difference, right?
So, why didn't someone with a better list win?

First off why not link to his list?

Second, without seeing a list, my guess is that he read the meta and brought a counter list, which probably makes it the best list for that tournament. If he plays it again it'll be because the meta isn't moving to counter but the odds are this was a one-off list that won't see a top-8 position again. We see that kind of list pop up every now and again to exploit the meta but they almost never last.

Also flukes happen from time to time. If there's no consistency there's no need to pay attention.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Did you seriouly bring Goonhammer into this?

Yes.

You took a source which has DOZENS of articles on 40k tactics, and took out a few sentences regarding an obscure 40k gamemode to prove your point that tactics don't exist?

Most of their 'tactics' are things like here's how to tri-point, don't stand your screens so close to what they're protecting, here's the math proving that it's best to shoot x at y, etc. None of this stuff changes from game to game.

Read any of their write-ups about a winning list. Do you see any talk that isn't the broad-strokes of how the list works and what it wants to use each unit for? No, they simply don't dive turn by turn into games because they know they don't need to.

A GT has just been won by a player which brought a list which wasn't meta in the least. This player is known as one of the best 40K players, but this obviously doesn't count since this game is extremely easy and players don't make a difference, right?
So, why didn't someone with a better list win?

First off why not link to his list?

Second, without seeing a list, my guess is that he read the meta and brought a counter list, which probably makes it the best list for that tournament. If he plays it again it'll be because the meta isn't moving to counter but the odds are this was a one-off list that won't see a top-8 position again. We see that kind of list pop up every now and again to exploit the meta but they almost never last.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796939.page Looks like a top player won a GT with a list drawn from elements that the community considers trash. He even took a big squad of Hellions...While taking something folks don't expect is certainly a way to gain an advantage, maybe skill on the tabletop counts for something?

Mezmorki,

I think you've framed a great way to approach the Tactics sub-forum with your post on this page. Much of the Tactics Forum comes out as list-building advice for all the reasons we hit on page 1 of this thread - its easier to discuss without context. At the same time its hard to separate list-building from tactics because decisions you make building your list have an impact on your tactics. I will look for ways to explore/inspire those ideas in the DA thread.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You took a source which has DOZENS of articles on 40k tactics, and took out a few sentences regarding an obscure 40k gamemode to prove your point that tactics don't exist?

Most of their 'tactics' are things like here's how to tri-point, don't stand your screens so close to what they're protecting, here's the math proving that it's best to shoot x at y, etc. None of this stuff changes from game to game.

My knowledge of military doctrine and terminology is all guesswork, so bear with me...

When I think of "tactics" or "A tactic" I think of it being a specific line of action in order to achieve a specific outcome in support achieving a specific strategic goal. In order to apply a tactic, one has to be confronted with a decision point, where the situational factors/context need to be assessed and a direction for action determined. This direction for action is usually coupled to a specific "tactic."

Let's take a hypothetical example for discussion.

An infantry squad has been tasked with securing a helicopter landing site in an urban plaza across the street with sporadic fire fights breaking in the area. This task is the squads objective or goal, which support some grander strategic need (landing site for additional troop deployments or whatever).

Approaching the street, the squad has a decision to make about how to get across the street, which is likely to expose them to hostile fire when crossing. What do they do? The tactical lines of action could include everyone grouping up and sprinting across the street in a dispersed formation (risky, but faster tactical move). Alternatively, they might leap-frog, with some squad members providing cover fire while others sprint across and then setup their own cover fire (slower, but safer).

The "tactics" under consideration are "dispersed sprint" versus "advance + cover" (or whatever these might be called).The squad leader has to decide what the "best" choice is, balancing the need for speed (can they take the slow safe option or do they only have 30 seconds to get to the drop zone?) versus the risk of taking incoming fire. Either way, the "tactic" is the action that is ultimately employed as a consequence of making a decision.

In regards to 40K, we can identify similar tactics. Units can run/advance or move+shoot, reflecting almost the exact same situation as above, and which can take in many of the same considerations. Advancing might let me get more models stacked on an objective, but move+shoot might let me get some models on the objective while thinning out the models in an opposing unit. There are considerations that come into play to make that decision. How likely is the enemy to be able to put more models on the objective than me? Does shooting the enemy unit help me keep more people on the objective? If I advance and get more models on the objective, how likely is it that I'll draw excess fire and risk losing control regardless? Do I have other units nearby that can shoot at enemy models to provide cover for my unit if it advances? Does that other unit need to direct fire elsewhere? For those of us who have played this game for decades, the "right tactic" might jump out pretty quickly as we consider the odds of one course of action against another. But in other cases, or with newer players, it might not be so straight forward.

Even down to things like tri-pointing, or sequences for removing casualties, or setting up effective screens - these are all tactics to be employed in the game. And you're right, the basic toolbox of "tactics" that are allowed are a function of the rules of the game So the tactical tools don't change from game to game, nor would we expect them to. The tactical menu of options doesn't change in a game of chess either. Rather, our moves as players are taken to either set ourselves up to leverage certain tactics or deny tactical options to our opponent. That's the basic foundation of the game.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not sure how you would envision changing 40k to make more in-line with the kind of decision-making you value. AA-systems, or more "advanced" rule sets (like ProHammer) are all geared towards creating more decision points, which in turn may open up more tactical options and even add new tactical options to the menu (like flanking a tank to attacker weaker rear armor). Maybe that's what you're advocating for? I'm not a fan of 9th edition, and I do feel the gameplay has been watered down, but I still think there are tactics in the game and that the game remains "interactive" in important ways.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796939.page Looks like a top player won a GT with a list drawn from elements that the community considers trash. He even took a big squad of Hellions...While taking something folks don't expect is certainly a way to gain an advantage, maybe skill on the tabletop counts for something?

From the thread you linked:

In all seriousness, looking at the list it's basically just a bunch of solid countermeta units (wraithseer in particular is very good at being obnoxious to kill with meta melta weapons thanks to its invuln save and T8 on a not super expensive platform that also has pretty quality melee attacks) with a bunch of hyper cheap units like razorwings that are really really great at scoring points.

The list is exactly what I said it was, a counter meta wonder that took a tournament by surprise.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The list is exactly what I said it was, a counter meta wonder that took a tournament by surprise.

That's likely a rudimentary understanding of the list. He made the incubi eligible for SfD so for all we know razor wings were baiting out Soulburst.

The d-cannon on the wraithseer is a monster considering ILOS. You wouldn't need to take hits with good use of terrain before getting the chance to cripple doomed eradicators or attack bikes.

 Mezmorki wrote:
In regards to 40K, we can identify similar tactics. Units can run/advance or move+shoot, reflecting almost the exact same situation as above, and which can take in many of the same considerations. Advancing might let me get more models stacked on an objective, but move+shoot might let me get some models on the objective while thinning out the models in an opposing unit.

If you have the CP, the enemy is on an objective, and the best way to kill it is to use an option with only advance or move and shoot as options the first thing you do is check if you can get them to advance and shoot. If you can do that in preference to the other options. if you can't then we need a full tabletop view to tell us which choice is the obvious one.

For those of us who have played this game for decades, the "right tactic" might jump out pretty quickly as we consider the odds of one course of action against another. But in other cases, or with newer players, it might not be so straight forward.

I don't give a feth about what new players find confusing. That's a layer of pointless abstraction when we can look at the game as a high level player sees it and show that there are only ever false choices to be made in any given situation/

Even down to things like tri-pointing, or sequences for removing casualties, or setting up effective screens - these are all tactics to be employed in the game.

Those are game mechanics, just like spending CP or rolling an attack is. If your unit only has one target it can shoot that turn and is already scoring an objective while in cover is it tactical to shoot that target? No, it isn't.

And you're right, the basic toolbox of "tactics" that are allowed are a function of the rules of the game So the tactical tools don't change from game to game, nor would we expect them to.

Shouldn't we expect them to change based on our opponent's army list and the mission we're playing? That they don't change says that 40k is exactly as shallow as I claim it to be.

The tactical menu of options doesn't change in a game of chess either.

Chess isn't deep either. It just takes a lot of memorization and a large mental workspace to play well. These things are exactly why computers are so good at chess because they have perfect memories and a vast ability do to complex calculations quickly.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not sure how you would envision changing 40k to make more in-line with the kind of decision-making you value. AA-systems, or more "advanced" rule sets (like ProHammer) are all geared towards creating more decision points, which in turn may open up more tactical options and even add new tactical options to the menu (like flanking a tank to attacker weaker rear armor). Maybe that's what you're advocating for? I'm not a fan of 9th edition, and I do feel the gameplay has been watered down, but I still think there are tactics in the game and that the game remains "interactive" in important ways.

I'd want more hidden information with every unit deploying as GSC units do and with armies have varying levels of sensor tech which informs how they resolve these hidden units. I'd want games here the standard mission starts with patrol sized forces resolving into games where a sideboard of units are called in with each unit taking various amounts of command points to bring in based on the game turn and that unit's strategic weight. Add in AA and you can use a lot of what already exists in 40k as the basis for what I want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's likely a rudimentary understanding of the list.

You don't need much more than that and a flowchart to pilot a list in 40k so...

On the subject of understanding why didn't you catch that the winning list is illegal? Do you even know why it's an illegal list?

He made the incubi eligible for SfD so for all we know razor wings were baiting out Soulburst.

Excellent speculation and wild ass guessing here...

The d-cannon on the wraithseer is a monster considering ILOS. You wouldn't need to take hits with good use of terrain before getting the chance to cripple doomed eradicators or attack bikes.

Yes, that is how that unit should function on that table, where's the depth?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I don't give a feth about what new players find confusing. That's a layer of pointless abstraction when we can look at the game as a high level player sees it and show that there are only ever false choices to be made in any given situation

Which, if we're being honest, is a criticism we can levy at any game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Even down to things like tri-pointing, or sequences for removing casualties, or setting up effective screens - these are all tactics to be employed in the game.

Those are game mechanics, just like spending CP or rolling an attack is. If your unit only has one target it can shoot that turn and is already scoring an objective while in cover is it tactical to shoot that target? No, it isn't.

Those things are actions that EMERGYFROM the game's mechanics - they aren't part of the actual structure of the rules nor mechanics defined by the rules at all. There is no reference to tri-pointing, or the best way to position or remove models in the rules. I'd actually argue, much like things like forming double-eyes in Go, or power structures created in Tigris & Euphrates, that these emergent activities and emergent options are a hallmark of a ruleset being at least somewhat deep and player-driven.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Shouldn't we expect them to change based on our opponent's army list and the mission we're playing? That they don't change says that 40k is exactly as shallow as I claim it to be.

The total MENU of possible tactical options doesn't change, the relative VALUE and opportunity to use the tactics on the menu do change depending on both player's list, the mission, the board state. Which is exactly what we would expect.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Chess isn't deep either. It just takes a lot of memorization and a large mental workspace to play well. These things are exactly why computers are so good at chess because they have perfect memories and a vast ability do to complex calculations quickly.

For the vast majority of people, perhaps even including many chess masters, is there even really a difference? Complexity and vastness of decision space creates it's own black box of obscurity and uncertainty, which has a similar effect as what you want to achieve through hidden information.

Speaking of hidden information - hidden information adds uncertainty to the game state and future game state, which can add a layer to and deepen the decision space if handled correctly (I'm with you here). But at the same time, hidden information can also work against player agency (which I think you purport to want more of). Many games have hidden goal or bonus scoring options that are hidden. The function of these is usually, IMHO, more in the service of keeping players engaged in the game (i.e. you don't really know who's winning, so you're not as worried about run-away leaders, kingmaking, etc.) rather than in deepening the decision making.

Certainly the presence of hidden information prompts further layers of questions during decision making - does my opponent have goal X or goal Y in their hand? How do my actions affect their prospects under either scenario? Does my opponent have counter card Z in their hand? If so, what are the risks of me doing one action over a different one. Are they bluffing about what they have or don't have? This can add a great dynamic to gameplay - I agree. But I don't believe that hidden information is NECCESSARY to have deep gameplay, because the uncertainty created by hidden information can also come from other sources - randomness, unknown intentions of your opponent, etc.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'd want more hidden information with every unit deploying as GSC units do and with armies have varying levels of sensor tech which informs how they resolve these hidden units. I'd want games here the standard mission starts with patrol sized forces resolving into games where a sideboard of units are called in with each unit taking various amounts of command points to bring in based on the game turn and that unit's strategic weight. Add in AA and you can use a lot of what already exists in 40k as the basis for what I want.

I know we've been disagreeing quite a bit - but just you know I'm with you on these sorts of changes.

Many of the older 40K missions (3rd and 4th edition) had some missions that did exactly this. There were rules for hidden deployment and needing to "spot" enemy units (you'd use face-down tokens corresponding to certain units) with a lot more missions requiring holding larger portions of forces back in reserve. With more forces held in reserve, the initial turns were less lethal and prone to alpha striking, which spread the impact of units actions out across the entire game better. I'm hoping to incorporate some of this in my mission pack I'm designing for ProHammer.

I like the idea of command points, but actually think they should be used exclusively for things related to strategic plans, like modifying setup parameters, managing reserves, modifying objectives, etc.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Which, if we're being honest, is a criticism we can levy at any game.

Untrue. You cannot level such a complaint at a game such as poker where hidden information and bluffing plays as large a part as the cards and rules for betting.

There is no reference to tri-pointing

The rules for falling back literally tell you how to prevent falling back. They don't explicitly say use three models positioned like so, but the conditions required dictate how the gameplay works.

I'd actually argue, much like things like forming double-eyes in Go

Do you think Go was created and then people discovered that double-eyes existed as a shock? I personally doubt that this is how it happened.

The total MENU of possible tactical options doesn't change, the relative VALUE and opportunity to use the tactics on the menu do change depending on both player's list, the mission, the board state. Which is exactly what we would expect.

This is a flaw. The tactical options should change based on what your opponent puts down as they did in past editions where some units couldn't harm other units, period. Being able to tank shock a unit into the optimal position for a wagon full of burnas to eradicate it was another tactical option that only existed for a specific army. The current ruleset for 40k is as deep as a kiddie pool.

For the vast majority of people, perhaps even including many chess masters, is there even really a difference? Complexity and vastness of decision space creates it's own black box of obscurity and uncertainty, which has a similar effect as what you want to achieve through hidden information.

Give it a few years. If Elon ever gets his chips working and accepted by the masses games like chess may become obsolete as een a novice can compute millions of moves deep into many given game.

Speaking of hidden information - hidden information adds uncertainty to the game state and future game state, which can add a layer to and deepen the decision space if handled correctly (I'm with you here). But at the same time, hidden information can also work against player agency (which I think you purport to want more of). Many games have hidden goal or bonus scoring options that are hidden. The function of these is usually, IMHO, more in the service of keeping players engaged in the game (i.e. you don't really know who's winning, so you're not as worried about run-away leaders, kingmaking, etc.) rather than in deepening the decision making.

Nonsense. Is the hidden information in Gloomhaven designed for that? Nope. How about in Waterdeep? I'd also argue not given that a skilled player will try to peg what his opponent's hidden goals are to prevent them from scoring extra points. Is the hidden information in MtG servicing this goal? Not even a little bit.

Certainly the presence of hidden information prompts further layers of questions during decision making - does my opponent have goal X or goal Y in their hand? How do my actions affect their prospects under either scenario? Does my opponent have counter card Z in their hand? If so, what are the risks of me doing one action over a different one. Are they bluffing about what they have or don't have? This can add a great dynamic to gameplay - I agree. But I don't believe that hidden information is NECCESSARY to have deep gameplay, because the uncertainty created by hidden information can also come from other sources - randomness, unknown intentions of your opponent, etc.

You also think that your opponent's intentions matter in 40k so I think I have to question your biases here.

I know we've been disagreeing quite a bit - but just you know I'm with you on these sorts of changes.

Many of the older 40K missions (3rd and 4th edition) had some missions that did exactly this. There were rules for hidden deployment and needing to "spot" enemy units (you'd use face-down tokens corresponding to certain units) with a lot more missions requiring holding larger portions of forces back in reserve. With more forces held in reserve, the initial turns were less lethal and prone to alpha striking, which spread the impact of units actions out across the entire game better. I'm hoping to incorporate some of this in my mission pack I'm designing for ProHammer.

I like the idea of command points, but actually think they should be used exclusively for things related to strategic plans, like modifying setup parameters, managing reserves, modifying objectives, etc.

Yeah, I mostly agree with your vision on what 40k can be just not with how deep you feel the current game's tactics are.

Would you like to shake hands and end things here with both of our points made as best we can make them?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The list is exactly what I said it was, a counter meta wonder that took a tournament by surprise.

That's likely a rudimentary understanding of the list. He made the incubi eligible for SfD so for all we know razor wings were baiting out Soulburst.

The d-cannon on the wraithseer is a monster considering ILOS. You wouldn't need to take hits with good use of terrain before getting the chance to cripple doomed eradicators or attack bikes.

List is also illegal isn't it? You cant take single razorwing units.