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.

Usually, the games I've found the most memorable are those where victory was through some unexpected vector of units that don't normally "team up" with each other.

In one 5th ed game, I was up against Jump Pack Blood Angels. My opponent has the Sanguinor, I have some Wagons and Kanz. My opponent is out of assault range, so I Tank Shock the Sanguinor. Note that since displacement is "closest legal distance" and the Battlewagon is the stretch limo of 40k vehicles, this ironically pulled the Sanguinor towards my army and into assault range, letting me tarpit him while I focused on killing the rest of the Blood Angels.

In another game, my opponent ran a Draigostar. I did the unexpected and actually charged a unit of 5 Lootas into the multiassault mess; thus most of the killiness of said Paladins was wasted on overkilling said Lootas while the rest of the MANz and Klaws got to do most the krumpin' unimpeded.

In 7th, I found that Horrors were better as a "sniper" unit than for mere tarpitting. This was partially due to the wonkiness of being able to run after the Psychic Phase, but it was also due to the Brotherhood of Psykers rule meaning I could choose the "point of origin" for Flickerfire. The unit shot 2d6 shots...from a single model, while splitting allowed for counter-sniping. (Inversely, splitting made you more vulnerable to melee on account of Instability acting very similar to WHFB Unstable/crumble wounds).

One thing I'm experimenting with in my game is replacing Phases with a "two-action" system, and replacing "free actions" and "explicit overwatch" with an "interrupt stack" system. In a weird way, it actually simplifies a lot of the game ("Move twice" instead of Advance, "Interrupt to shoot/Interrupt to charge" instead of Overwatch/Heroic Intervention," etc) while increasing the depth of play by an order of magnitude.

Unfortunately, with the current meta being built around turn 1 alpha-strikes, there's not a whole lot of room for tactical development.

The core ruleset definitely allows for tactics to develop, earlier games in the edition before the big leafblowers came to be ubiquitous can show this. The problem is GW's current and constant arms race with the armies. Until they come to understand that the raw offense of the game needs to be dialed back, we're going to keep getting games that are decided in the deployment phase, with everything else just following the motions.

Exactlly the only slight diffrence is if you hold a reserve force but you still need to survive the OP alpha before you get to play.

Alpha strike is strong because shooting is too strong. Every list is stuffed with DS oblits, Guard artillery, and reapers. Everyone else is just twisting in the wind.

You want more tactics? Make the strongest guns have the shortest range. Or have degrading profiles based on distance.

Consider:
Lascannon

Distance <24" - Strength 9, AP-5, 4 damage
Distance 24-36" - Strength 8, AP-3, 2 damage
Distance 36"+ - Strength 7, AP-1, 1 damage

And designate artillery properly:
Distance 24" or less - cannot shoot the target
Distance 24"-36" - -1 to hit
Distance 36"+ - No penalties to hit
Artillery without line of sight to the target suffers -1 to hit.

Also, set it so that in matched play, one out of every three units can be placed into Deep Strike reserves. More starts out on the table, and people aren't just blowing each other away from across the table without moving.

 Marmatag wrote:

Also, set it so that in matched play, one out of every three units can be placed into Deep Strike reserves. More starts out on the table, and people aren't just blowing each other away from across the table without moving.

Alternatively make reserves cost CP or make them unreliable with a roll.

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Also, set it so that in matched play, one out of every three units can be placed into Deep Strike reserves. More starts out on the table, and people aren't just blowing each other away from across the table without moving.

Alternatively make reserves cost CP or make them unreliable with a roll.

Only if these are accompanied by MASSIVE nerfs to Imperial Guard, Eldar, and all ranged shooting. Yikes. I use reserves primarily now so my units don't get eliminated turn 1... from long range shooting.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Also, set it so that in matched play, one out of every three units can be placed into Deep Strike reserves. More starts out on the table, and people aren't just blowing each other away from across the table without moving.

Alternatively make reserves cost CP or make them unreliable with a roll.

Only if these are accompanied by MASSIVE nerfs to Imperial Guard, Eldar, and all ranged shooting. Yikes. I use reserves primarily now so my units don't get eliminated turn 1... from long range shooting.

I mean in all honesty, how would everyones games be if people stopped using eldar and imp guard specific problem units.

i know monster mash chaos was pretty big. but other then those three i dont hear much about the other forces.

40K without abuse of broken units is damn fun...that's what it is. Skip Maelstrom and create heavier terrain on a table and play without the super-optimized list (i.e. mathhammer) and the game is plenty enjoyable.

It's one of the reasons I don't particularly care that certain units are broken. Playing with buddies of mine, we simply don't use them (or use them very sparingly). Shocking, I know, but it's quite enjoyable when a close fought fun game is the objective.

 Marmatag wrote:
Only if these are accompanied by MASSIVE nerfs to Imperial Guard, Eldar, and all ranged shooting. Yikes. I use reserves primarily now so my units don't get eliminated turn 1... from long range shooting.

You know that reserves abuse favors shooting as well, right? IG deep strike plasma arriving turn 1 wherever you want it with no scatter or chance of failure is one of the worst "no tactics" offenders in reducing 40k to a really expensive CCG. Nerf reserves and now the IG player has to choose between taking their chances with the reserves system vs. trying to move the plasma guns up the table via transports. And in either case it isn't getting to shoot until turn 2-3.

Or they could just fix plasma from it's broken auto include kills anything profile and cheap cost.
But yes reserves should have an element of randomness to them I'm not sure adding scatter back in is the right move but heck needing to roll even a 3+ would make reserves have a risk for the reward of being untouchable

There are tactics if you build and play for it, less if you don't.

These threads are always funny, most of the loudest voices don't realize how clearly they're signaling that their bad play is the problem.

A lot also depends on the point level.

At 1000 points the game allows for a lot of choices. Long range shooting is inexistent or severely limited, troops compose a big part of the list and in general the game is at it's best. Unfortunately at that point level, lists have match up problems.

At 2000 points the match ups are better, all lists are reasonably balanced (except for a couple of infamous ones). Problem here is that the table is overcrowded, and there is a lot of long range shooting, so you are severely limited in the ways you can influence the outcome (it still counts for at least 30-35% of the outcome though, good players with bad lists can win against bad players with good lists).

At 1500 you sort of mix the pro's and con's of 2000 and 1000. The table has a lot of free space for movement, there is an average amount of long range shooting and you have some cases of unbalanced match ups.

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Also, set it so that in matched play, one out of every three units can be placed into Deep Strike reserves. More starts out on the table, and people aren't just blowing each other away from across the table without moving.

Alternatively make reserves cost CP or make them unreliable with a roll.

Terrible idea. We want more tactics so we are going to take away control and choice from the player? How does that help build tactical game play to have it come down to a die roll on wether or not you can actually implement your plan?

 koooaei wrote:
Hey. It might be a burnout but i can't deal with a feeling that if you would rate the importance of factors that make you win, tactics would be by far the least important one.
1. Listbuilding. It seems to be the cornerstone of success. You can look at lists before the game and have a 95% success rate at guessing who's gona win.
2. First turn and general dice luck. With how killy things are and with how little you can do to protect your forces other than bring the 'right' ones (see listbuilding) this is more important than ever before.
3. Tactics. Seems that it goes last after all the other things. There is just not much you can do.

At least i feel so. And i'm not alone within our gaming group. We've tried some new games like walking dead and seen the diffedence. Even necromunda and shadowwar armageddon aren't that hollow. And it's hard to say this, but EVEN 7th edition was better than what 8th currently is.

You hit the nail on the head. 8th edition 40k killed my entire 40k gaming group. We still play 30k but how long until they fubar that up?

Aos did the exact same thing to my fantasy group. We had over 13 armies represented , now that group is dead too.

We went from 100% GW all the time with both systems to basically abandoning all that is "NEW GW".

Everyone in the group has turned to not believing that any GW game release will be one of quality and will be "pumped and dumped" from now on.

We are going to differ on what we regard as “tactics”, but I’d say the game played RAW is very shallow in this regard. There are some choices to be made on deployment, but after that it’s kind of stupid simple. Not even saying stupid simple is a bad thing for 40k, but there really aren’t a lot of real choices to be made once the game starts.

Many would argue the somewhat gamey and uncessarily complex way every single model needs to be micromanaged in the movement and combat phases are tactics but I think it’s just silly.

I’m actually ok with it right now though. It’s shallow but fun (as long as you like rolling lots of dice), and approached as a casual miniature game it’s better than it’s been in a long while.

 Lance845 wrote:
Terrible idea. We want more tactics so we are going to take away control and choice from the player? How does that help build tactical game play to have it come down to a die roll on wether or not you can actually implement your plan?

It works because it forces you to make risk vs. reward tradeoffs and figure out how to deal with it when things don't go as planned. If your deep striking plasma is unreliable is it still worth putting it in reserve? How do you deal with the intended target of the plasma with your other units if you don't pass your reserve rolls? These were interesting choices to make in previous editions, where deep striking gave you a ton of power at the cost of reliability. In 8th there's no choice to make, any unit that can deep strike is always going to deep strike because it's strictly better than starting the game on the table. The only possible choice you could ever have is with the 50% limit, if you have too many units with the option and can only use some of them. Tactics-wise you just count up how many plasma shots you're going to drop on turn 1 and then roll some dice. It's just like putting "plasma bolt" in your CCG deck.

 Marmatag wrote:
Alpha strike is strong because shooting is too strong. Every list is stuffed with DS oblits, Guard artillery, and reapers. Everyone else is just twisting in the wind.

You want more tactics? Make the strongest guns have the shortest range. Or have degrading profiles based on distance.

Consider:
Lascannon

Distance <24" - Strength 9, AP-5, 4 damage
Distance 24-36" - Strength 8, AP-3, 2 damage
Distance 36"+ - Strength 7, AP-1, 1 damage

And designate artillery properly:
Distance 24" or less - cannot shoot the target
Distance 24"-36" - -1 to hit
Distance 36"+ - No penalties to hit
Artillery without line of sight to the target suffers -1 to hit.

Also, set it so that in matched play, one out of every three units can be placed into Deep Strike reserves. More starts out on the table, and people aren't just blowing each other away from across the table without moving.

Another problem I see is that there is no variety in stat-lines, of both the weapons, and the units. The stronger a weapon is, the more S, AP, and range it will have. There aren't weapons that fill a variety of rolls or functions, it's either [anti-infantry], or [anti-tank/tough];

Weapons
Strength
AP
Damage
Range
Amount of shots
[price]

Units
Toughness
SV
Wounds
[Strength]
[Attacks]
[Speed]
[price]

What about a S2 gun that had high AP?
What about a S2 gun with low ap, low damage, but a massive number of shots?
What about a high S weapon with little penetration?

As it stands, you're really either an infantry (~t4, 1w), a tank-like (t7/8, 10+w, SV2/3+), or a super heavy; mix it up a little [read: lot]. Standardized stat lines, of weapons and of models, are bunk.

What about a T8, Sv6+ model?
What about a T2, Sv2+ model?
What about a model that is nothing except a pile of wounds?

Look; I don't have the best examples at the moment - but the point stands, there should be everything from a top quality weapon/unit (high values in everything, including price), to a low quality weapon/unit (low values in everything, including price); there should also be weapons/units that fill niches and statlines that don't currently exist as well - as it is, everything is standardized - and that's boring, plus bad for the game.

The simple answer is yes there are tactics involved in Warhammer (the depth of Warhammer compared to other games isn't really important just that fact that there are tactics).

Your statement seems to break down to (oversimplified)
>list can decide a game
>thus there are no tactics

While lists are important they certainly aren't the only thing in it.
1. The existence of the mirror match disproves this theory. two identical lists can be piloted by different players and have drastically different win percentages.
2. regardless of how trivial and easy it might seem things taken for granted such as target priority and deployment are done differently by each player and are thus a type of tactic
3. the same players being successful year after year at major events proves there is skill involved if it were only lists you would simply find a a much larger (more random) group of players winning major GTs

This game is actually very similar to hearthstone in the list/deck building phase of the game. While the deck you make in HS is important you dont see random players winning the championships each year and its why the same players make it to the top spots over and over... they are simply able to pilot the same deck to a higher win percentage. It's why when you go on hearthpone you will see people saying "how did you get to legends with this deck i cant get past rank 15" same thing on these forums different people of different skill levels can pilot decks to different win percentages. While you will never win if you dont take a competitive list doesn't mean that you can give some random person a top list and they will win LVO with it

fe40k wrote:
What about a S2 gun that had high AP?
What about a S2 gun with low ap, low damage, but a massive number of shots?
What about a high S weapon with little penetration?

The problem is that none of these things really have any impact, because the only stat that matters is average wounds inflicted and 8th edition guarantees that you're at least wounding on a 6. In previous editions something like a S2 AP2 gun might have made sense, as a gun that could really effectively kill low-toughness infantry at the expense of being literally unable to roll dice against anything T6 or higher (or any vehicle). But now in 8th you wound a T20 titan on a 6 and ignore its (normal) save, just like a lascannon wounds on a 6 and ignores its save. The only question then becomes how much damage each gun does once it wounds, and if your D1 anti-infantry gun is cheap enough to bring several of them to beat the single lascannon's D6 damage.

This, of course, is part of the rules bloat of 40k. There are too many different defensive and offensive stats that all sum up to a single average wounds per shot value, and too many combinations of those stats that are effectively equivalent. We'd be better off simplifying the stat lines and getting rid of the illusion of depth.

What about a T8, Sv6+ model?
What about a T2, Sv2+ model?
What about a model that is nothing except a pile of wounds?

Again, none of these things really lead to interesting choices. Toughness and save value are linked, so you just calculate out the chance to wound. Wounding on a 2+ and saving on a 2+ is exactly equivalent to wounding on a 6+ and saving on a 6+. Sure, whether it gets its defense from saves or toughness changes whether it's more vulnerable to strength or AP, but can you really say that either of those vulnerabilities stands out as worse? It's certainly less interesting than comparing a T3 Sv5+ guardsman to a T4 Sv3+ marine, where instead of details over the exact implementation of two equivalent defense values you have a cheap and fragile horde model vs. an expensive and durable elite model.

Worse than this mathematical equivalence is the fact that you aren't providing any interesting strategic choices. If there's any difference in all your unconventional combinations it's something that is only found when you get out a calculator and figure out the averages for all of your math. You might discover that you can gain a 5% increase in damage by going with weapon X instead of weapon Y to deal with this weird T8 Sv6+ model, but that's a very shallow sort of strategy. It changes your list building, but it doesn't have any meaningful impact on your on-table choices. Nor does it have much of an impact on the player with the weird model, it's still a "tough" model for strategic purposes and therefore used the same as other "tough" models. And that's how it should be, you want players making strategic choices based on unit roles, not calculating out mathematical averages and obsessing over optimizing their dice.

Look; I don't have the best examples at the moment - but the point stands, there should be everything from a top quality weapon/unit (high values in everything, including price), to a low quality weapon/unit (low values in everything, including price); there should also be weapons/units that fill niches and statlines that don't currently exist as well - as it is, everything is standardized - and that's boring, plus bad for the game.

If you ever want tactics in 40k you will have to be open to the idea that you can't have information. I can look at at ANY list and go, "oh X unit is going to screen, Y unit will charge".

There is no traps to spring, no bluffs to call, no way to force your opponent's hand. I can't place down a mystery unit and force my opponent to scout it out with an expendable unit, lest the unit he uses to engage it gets mulched by not the minimum strength Tactical Squad he thought it was BUT was actually a 5-man Honor Guard!

I can't disguise my Leman Russ Exterminator to look like an Annihilator! I can't deploy 9/10ths of my list and have my opponent think that is all of it, when I secretly have a Terminator squad ready to drop right next to his warlord. Conversely I can't bluff that I have stuff in reserve when I actually don't!

40k Needs a SIDEBOARD if you ever want REAL tactics to develop.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
40k Is still stuck in the list-building phase, and will REMAIN there until deception and misinformation actually is possible.

 Quickjager wrote:
If you ever want tactics in 40k you will have to be open to the idea that you can't have information. I can look at at ANY list and go, "oh X unit is going to screen, Y unit will charge".

There is no traps to spring, no bluffs to call, no way to force your opponent's hand. I can't place down a mystery unit and force my opponent to scout it out with an expendable unit, lest the unit he uses to engage it gets mulched by not the minimum strength Tactical Squad he thought it was BUT was actually a 5-man Honor Guard!

I can't disguise my Leman Russ Exterminator to look like an Annihilator! I can't deploy 9/10ths of my list and have my opponent think that is all of it, when I secretly have a Terminator squad ready to drop right next to his warlord. Conversely I can't bluff that I have stuff in reserve when I actually don't!

40k Needs a SIDEBOARD if you ever want REAL tactics to develop.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
40k Is still stuck in the list-building phase, and will REMAIN there until deception and misinformation actually is possible.

Traps and such aren't a requirement for tactical thought to exist in a game it simply adds another layer. Secondly, we do have a version of traps and counter play now that exists in strategies. For example like the custodes "swooping dive (i think thats the name)' or even simple things like auto passing moral. You can force your opponent to waste fire to wipe a unit that would otherwise disappear from moral. Sideboard play comes into account by trying to guess when and how your opponent will utilize their command point abilities. This will continue to update and develop into a small side meta to any game as more and more armies get access to more strategems.

 Quickjager wrote:
40k Is still stuck in the list-building phase, and will REMAIN there until deception and misinformation actually is possible.

The problem is that implementing things like that in a tabletop game is difficult, if not impossible. You'd have to throw out WYSIWYG, accurate measuring, rolling dice openly, etc, and trust your opponent not to cheat. And then you'd have to add a bunch of complexity in mechanics to reveal the deception. For example, your disguised LRBT still has the actual lascannons or autocannons mounted in its turret, so it should be possible for a careful observer to reveal the deception. But how exactly will that work? And how do you prevent me from realizing that you have a hidden ambush unit when I add up the points of your army list, realize that you don't have a full X points on the table, and conclude that you must have something in reserve?

Also, it's entirely possible to have tactics without that kind of hidden information. 40k already has hidden information in the outcome of the dice, and even games (such as chess) with zero hidden information still have tactics. The problem with 40k is that IGOUGO eliminates the possibility of action vs. reaction depth, while GW has relentlessly removed the relevance of anything but dice and list building by minimizing the effects of terrain, extending movement distances to absurd levels, etc. Fix that and you have a game with a lot more depth.

40k definitely feels like a pretty simple game. That said, lots of people still play it very poorly. If you watch other people play or watch youtube battle reports or whatever, you're going to see lots and lots of misplays.

I guess I'd say it's a lot like Spades (the card game). Ultimately, there's not a whole lot to it, and playing is basically automatic for people with lots of experience. But there are actually a lot of people who have to think about what they're doing, because they lack the requisite experience to just immediately see what the best play is.

40k tactics seems to mostly fall into 2 areas. First, there's understanding the importance of certain distances and rules interactions. You improve your play significantly if you're used to thinking about what your opponent will be able to shoot after walking forward, or where your opponent will be forced to deep strike if you put a screen in a given spot, etc. Second, there's target prioritization.

These aren't actually trivial. Most players are probably never going to get very good at either. Even picking targets is deceptively difficult for many people, since it requires either lots and lots of preparation or a great deal of mathematical intuition. It is almost certainly the case that many of the people complaining that the game isn't tactically deep are also not actually good at it.

But at the same time, once you have these skills you can mostly play on autopilot. I think it is very rare that a great player will have to stop in the middle of a game and re-think what he's doing because his opponent busted out some unexpected tactic. Usually it is pretty obvious from the start of the game what the best plan is for each army.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Also, set it so that in matched play, one out of every three units can be placed into Deep Strike reserves. More starts out on the table, and people aren't just blowing each other away from across the table without moving.

Alternatively make reserves cost CP or make them unreliable with a roll.

Terrible idea. We want more tactics so we are going to take away control and choice from the player? How does that help build tactical game play to have it come down to a die roll on wether or not you can actually implement your plan?

How does taking one thing away that makes 3-4 different tactics irrelevant especially for certain armies that dont do it well not a good thing.

Pancakey wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Hey. It might be a burnout but i can't deal with a feeling that if you would rate the importance of factors that make you win, tactics would be by far the least important one.
1. Listbuilding. It seems to be the cornerstone of success. You can look at lists before the game and have a 95% success rate at guessing who's gona win.
2. First turn and general dice luck. With how killy things are and with how little you can do to protect your forces other than bring the 'right' ones (see listbuilding) this is more important than ever before.
3. Tactics. Seems that it goes last after all the other things. There is just not much you can do.

At least i feel so. And i'm not alone within our gaming group. We've tried some new games like walking dead and seen the diffedence. Even necromunda and shadowwar armageddon aren't that hollow. And it's hard to say this, but EVEN 7th edition was better than what 8th currently is.

You hit the nail on the head. 8th edition 40k killed my entire 40k gaming group. We still play 30k but how long until they fubar that up?

Aos did the exact same thing to my fantasy group. We had over 13 armies represented , now that group is dead too.

We went from 100% GW all the time with both systems to basically abandoning all that is "NEW GW".

Everyone in the group has turned to not believing that any GW game release will be one of quality and will be "pumped and dumped" from now on.

While this may be the case (and if so, that sucks), please understand that you're a small sample size, and appear to be the exception and not the rule. I don't mean to discredit your opinion, but understand your "group" is not indicative of 40K gamers.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Terrible idea. We want more tactics so we are going to take away control and choice from the player? How does that help build tactical game play to have it come down to a die roll on wether or not you can actually implement your plan?

It works because it forces you to make risk vs. reward tradeoffs and figure out how to deal with it when things don't go as planned. If your deep striking plasma is unreliable is it still worth putting it in reserve? How do you deal with the intended target of the plasma with your other units if you don't pass your reserve rolls? These were interesting choices to make in previous editions, where deep striking gave you a ton of power at the cost of reliability. In 8th there's no choice to make, any unit that can deep strike is always going to deep strike because it's strictly better than starting the game on the table. The only possible choice you could ever have is with the 50% limit, if you have too many units with the option and can only use some of them. Tactics-wise you just count up how many plasma shots you're going to drop on turn 1 and then roll some dice. It's just like putting "plasma bolt" in your CCG deck.

No it doesn't because the risk vs reward based on a single arbitrary dice roll. Your not gambling on a distraction, hoping your opponent takes the bait. Your not attempting a flank, or making a dash for some cover.

I am not saying what 40k has now is good. It's not. But bringing back totally arbitrary bull gak that makes it so you cannot even build a cohesive strategy isn't what is going to make it better. All the player agency is removed. Both between you and your opponent when you start making it so just being able to act requires a dice roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:


How does taking one thing away that makes 3-4 different tactics irrelevant especially for certain armies that dont do it well not a good thing.

As above, you remove player agency in the game. One of the best changes from 7th to 8th was the increase in player agency. We can actually make a plan and then do it on the table without having to worry about passing test after random test just to see if things will work out properly. Did you play nids in 8th? How great were trygons! oh man. First you had to roll to have them show up. Maybe if they did that first you could place the tunnel marker for them and on the NEXT turn something could come out of the tunnel. But hey, if the trygon DOESN'T show up first and the thing you wanted to come out of the tunnel DID then you could place it on your table edge and the tunnel would be worthless!

8th has auras. If your roll is successful for the character but not the unit he should be supporting what then?

Again, players agency in forming and executing strategies and tactics are removed by that random dice roll. You want more tactics, but you don't get it by making a choice a total crap shoot.

The problem is at the moment not deepstriking as much as possible is rarely the better option. I get no-one wanting to go back to everything arriving in a way the play hadn't any control over.
However by the same token giving free 100% reliable turn one deepstrike or flanking means there isn't a downside to doing so, thier is no downside. So its not player agency its a you should do this or your at a disadvantage.
Personally I would say at the start of a players turn they role a dice for each unit in reserve. make it a role of 5+ for each unit to be on station. But that once a unit is on station the player can call them in any subsequent movement phase. In second turn roll for any units not on station and on a 3+ they are on station. Turn three all reserves are on station.
You always get your reserves but its not a guaranteed turn one alpha strike of death.

Absolute no to reinstating randomness to reserves. Maybe a limitation on how many units you can bring in each turn; two each on turn one and two, and then you can bring in everything you still have in reserves on turn three. There have to be other solutions than just taking control out of the player's hands.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
40k Is still stuck in the list-building phase, and will REMAIN there until deception and misinformation actually is possible.

The problem is that implementing things like that in a tabletop game is difficult, if not impossible. You'd have to throw out WYSIWYG, accurate measuring, rolling dice openly, etc, and trust your opponent not to cheat. And then you'd have to add a bunch of complexity in mechanics to reveal the deception. For example, your disguised LRBT still has the actual lascannons or autocannons mounted in its turret, so it should be possible for a careful observer to reveal the deception. But how exactly will that work? And how do you prevent me from realizing that you have a hidden ambush unit when I add up the points of your army list, realize that you don't have a full X points on the table, and conclude that you must have something in reserve?

Also, it's entirely possible to have tactics without that kind of hidden information. 40k already has hidden information in the outcome of the dice, and even games (such as chess) with zero hidden information still have tactics. The problem with 40k is that IGOUGO eliminates the possibility of action vs. reaction depth, while GW has relentlessly removed the relevance of anything but dice and list building by minimizing the effects of terrain, extending movement distances to absurd levels, etc. Fix that and you have a game with a lot more depth.

Tactics without hidden information would involve weapon ranges no longer than 24 inches, something the game has far outstriped. Hidden information doesn't mean statistics, to say dice is hidden information is like me saying a politician on a certain party issue has a hidden policy; that is to say you can completely infer what is likely. Chess itself as described by professionals has tactics in so far as you must find out the method of attack your opponent will be using, THAT MEANS THERE IS BLUFFING it means they must infer from the information in front of them what pieces their opponents see as key to their strategy and remove without losing your own.

It is almost as if you ignore the concept of a sideboard. Let us put a sideboard limit of 300 points in a 1500 points game. This LIMIT prevents the player from switching off an Imperial Knight, Guilliman, Baneblade, etc. as they cost more points that 300. So these center-piece units become key in the OVERALL strategy of a player and the opponent is allowed to react to them (Meaning these centerpiece units are also open to being buffed as they become more easily countered) however this sideboard of 300 points allows a player to choose how to react. These 300 points of sideboard units could be picked AS THE GAME PROGRESSES, meaning you can choose to spend and deploy the 300 points right at the start to gain a alpha strike advantage. OR you could hold the 300 points back for a turn or two to decide what would be the best unit to bring in.

If you cry foul and say but they might cheat on the points! Well have the opponent have a list of what the sideboard unit costs. You could even limit what units are sideboard eligible. ALL THIS WITHOUT SACRIFICING WYSIWYG OR ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS.

There are numerous ways to add misinformation in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yea add being in cover means -1 to hit not +1 armor bs. 2+ armor means gak in cover then unless you make it so 2+ in cover means 1s are NOT autofail.