Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problem in 40k is that all information is open information, so baiting or goading opponents depends almost entirely on them not being good enough to understand what's happening.

Not necessarily. A player can get cocky or over-extend themselves. You are propositioning that people act like AI that can only take their perceived optimal route through the equation when the fact is that people are a bit more of a wildcard. One player trying to goad another players means the other player must read their opponents goad while they are themselves trying to get the other player to make mistakes.

I must admit I feel like a quite a few people here are treating their opponents as if they were just AI dummies that act in completely planned manner.

I am also going to take this "tactics" discussion further. Chess doesn't contain any hidden information so to speak except what your opponent does. Would that not by these aforementioned definition imply that chess has no tactic? For the record I would personally argue chess is more tactical than Warhammer 40k.

I play as often as I can. Currently it averages to roughly twice a month, but has been on the decline because I have 'new shinny' syndrome something terrible. This can be a difficult hurdle to overcome when also trying to actually play games.

I can sympathize with Stormatious. I get supper paranoid about my stuff. I've suffered the peril of varnish frosting my beautiful models. I've also encountered some exceedingly un-conscientious players over the years where I feel they're a little too careless around my stuff.

I haven't played a game of 40k in decades, since a Con game in the early 00's. But I'm getting ready to fool around with the old Rogue Trader rules and run some narrative games with that.

I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.

What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.

Played about... four or five games last month?

 Ishagu wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.

What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.

40k at a small scale (250-750) is incredibly unbalanced. Not to mention very swingy. It is the game. I do not enjoy 40k as is. I prefer more indepth things, and 40k is very simplified. That's not a terrible thing, but not the game I'm looking for.


Which is a shame, as the models and lore are great, but none of the 3 main games really suit my fancy.

Another one of these threads eh?

I think there should be an option for "I play regularly(twice a month?)

Understanding maths is important, of course it is. There is a chance and die involved.. The game really shines when math hammer DOES NOT WORK THE WAY ITS SUPPOSED TO and you have to devise alternative strategies because pointing and clicking will no longer work in the long run so you have to adapt and.

This is pretty anecdotal but I've played a lot of games where I got obliterated in early turns because dice were heavily in my opponent's favour and they went first etc. Never conceded a game and quit and managed to pull off draws & wins whilst getting tabled.

Of course there will be games where you just cannot claw it back and get really unlucky. Like any game involving an element of chance... If your opponent rolls savagely above average but does not manoeuvre correctly. I dont understand hate and complaints about 40k. Not sure why people are absolutely determined to justify their hate for a game they don't play or collect or even paint for... Whatever gets people through the day though.

Played a little 2nd Ed earlier in the year, little bit of 8th.. also Grimdark Future, bit of Epic and our own systems.

Not going to say it's all awful, but the basic limitations from my point of view are:

IGO-UGO

Movement phase then Firing Phase. WHY can't I fire and then move??

And then there's the volume of stuff you need to play it. To play GDF I printed off three sheets of paper - to play the equivalent game of 40k I would have had to buy the rulebook, Codex Astra Militarum and Codex Orks, which turns it into a pretty expensive deal.

Still, wouldn't say I hate it, just that it seems a little ploddy compared to some of the other stuff. Going to try AoS again tomorrow night, see how that stacks up against our system and One Page Rules Age Of Fantasy: Regiments

My last game was a week and a half ago. Since the second child was born it's a little hard to find the time for a game. I just finished putting together a home gaming table, so I can now play without being away from the fam.

I've basically quit 40k. In the last 4 months or so I've probably only played two games, one being just this past weekend. I only played those two mostly as favors. Last weekend I was helping a friend practice their competitive list and half way through the first turn turn of the game I already regretted playing and zoned out because of how brain dead it felt. It's a shame because I really like the models and lore, the game is just so boring to me now. I've mainly switched to 30k and have been having a blast playing that.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.

What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.

40k at a small scale (250-750) is incredibly unbalanced. Not to mention very swingy. It is the game. I do not enjoy 40k as is. I prefer more indepth things, and 40k is very simplified. That's not a terrible thing, but not the game I'm looking for.


Which is a shame, as the models and lore are great, but none of the 3 main games really suit my fancy.

40K seems to play best at about 1K points using the old FOC and with objectives vs. “Kill them All”.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I don't enjoy 40k anymore. Perhaps it does have some tactical depth, however it's not the tactical depth I enjoy. I wish there was a more indepth game between 40k and Kill Team that had some vehicles and maybe 1-3 squads. Maybe call it Combat Patrol or something.

What's stopping you from playing such a game? Smaller armies, less units. Kill team is getting a vehicle expansion soon.
The good thing about wargaming is being able to cater an game/mission to your liking. The problem might be with your local community and not the game.

40k at a small scale (250-750) is incredibly unbalanced. Not to mention very swingy. It is the game. I do not enjoy 40k as is. I prefer more indepth things, and 40k is very simplified. That's not a terrible thing, but not the game I'm looking for.


Which is a shame, as the models and lore are great, but none of the 3 main games really suit my fancy.

40K seems to play best at about 1K points using the old FOC and with objectives vs. “Kill them All”.

Yeah I wouldn't mind that. I don't have much in money so I can't afford a full 2k or even 1k army. Both me and my dad have an SC so we've been designing a ruleset that's sort of an inbetween of 40k and Kill Team. We're doing playtesting right now and it's been super fun so far.

I don't play often enough to get bored by the game, meaning I never play the same list twice, neither do my opponents (aside from some 1000P tournaments in our group). I still enjoy 8th and consider it a vast improvement to 6th and 7th in everything. Narrative gaming lacked a little but with Vigilus it gained enough content. Terrain was fixed by Cities of Death and tactics were more relevant than in 6th and 7th even with only Indices. The game is still rather slow and nothing compared to Lotr, but for larger games I'm eager to try out Apokalypse. IGOUGO holds 40K back.

 Eldarsif wrote:
You are propositioning that people act like AI that can only take their perceived optimal route through the equation when the fact is that people are a bit more of a wildcard. One player trying to goad another players means the other player must read their opponents goad while they are themselves trying to get the other player to make mistakes.

"Hope your opponent is a weaker player and makes mistakes" is not strategic depth.

Chess doesn't contain any hidden information so to speak except what your opponent does. Would that not by these aforementioned definition imply that chess has no tactic?

Pretty much. There's a reason that chess has been solved by computers to the point that human players have essentially a 0% win rate and high-level human play consists mostly of having an excellent memory for all of the correct plays in every possible situation and making the fewest mistakes in executing them. Chess only seems to be a very deep game because solving it requires processing more data than humans are capable of working with and so lower-level players have to make more guesses about what's happening.

I get a game in damn near every home station drill, but it's a game of 3rd Ed.

My opponent also stays current, and I'm sure he wants me to at least try 8th, but I see very little to make me WANT to sit through a game of that.

I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.

I play lots of ITC tournaments.... enough that I'm actually in the top 100 overall of the ITC rankings! woo!

OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>

Pretty much. There's a reason that chess has been solved by computers to the point that human players have essentially a 0% win rate and high-level human play consists mostly of having an excellent memory for all of the correct plays in every possible situation and making the fewest mistakes in executing them.

You are still proving the point of the original argument that there is no such thing as tactic in games.

It's at this point the goalpost moving begins and people claim that game A has real "tactics" but not game B so I am checking myself out of this discussion.

I do hope everyone here enjoys their favourite game and has some excellent people to play with. I myself am going to play some 40k and AoS this weekend with some excellent people. Life is good!

 Eldarsif wrote:

Pretty much. There's a reason that chess has been solved by computers to the point that human players have essentially a 0% win rate and high-level human play consists mostly of having an excellent memory for all of the correct plays in every possible situation and making the fewest mistakes in executing them.

You are still proving the point of the original argument that there is no such thing as tactic in games.

It's at this point the goalpost moving begins and people claim that game A has real "tactics" but not game B so I am checking myself out of this discussion.

I do hope everyone here enjoys their favourite game and has some excellent people to play with. I myself am going to play some 40k and AoS this weekend with some excellent people. Life is good!

Chess is based on known information.

Apoc as an example has everyone issue their units orders before all orders are revealed. What orders you give is going to depend on what you THINk your opponent has planned for the next turn. What order you activate you units in is based on what orders each of you have issued. Cards can potentially allow you to change orders. When and how they are used... Every step of that process is tactics in a game.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.

I think your distinction between tactics and efficiency here is arbitrary, possibly even imaginary.

All tactical decisions ultimately come down to what allocation of resources will most efficiently move you towards your goal. Not just in 40k, in anything.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>

We can't have a discussion about 40k without pages of people saying it's a terrible, non-tactical, 100% math based game with no redeeming qualities!

 Horst wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>

We can't have a discussion about 40k without pages of people saying it's a terrible, non-tactical, 100% math based game with no redeeming qualities!

Don't forget "You're playing it wrong! ITC/Narrative 4 lyfe!"

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.

I think your distinction between tactics and efficiency here is arbitrary, possibly even imaginary.

All tactical decisions ultimately come down to what allocation of resources will most efficiently move you towards your goal. Not just in 40k, in anything.

Well your wrong about that. Look at my apoc examples. There is no math equation for those choices because they are based on too many unknowns. Its unsolvable. 40k doesnt have that. Its just effeciency. You can stretch your resources with intelligent application and subterfuge. You can just apply them effeciently or not.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not arguing pure math hammer.

If you can reach a objective to score a vp and you dont move to grab the vp thats not a tactical choice. Its effeciency which is math. You might be bad at math and make the wrong choice, but it doesnt suddenlt become tactics because you cant pay attention to effeciency of actions.

I am not arguing that you need x unit with y options because thats the best. I am saying that on the table if that unit can remove x models by shooting them or x + 5 models by shooting them then its math and you have a clearly superior choice to make. Thats not tactics. Its effeciency. More advanced players understand their math better. List build however you want. Go full fluffy. Play open or narrative or cut throat tourny.

On the table you dont have any significant tactical decisions to make.

I think your distinction between tactics and efficiency here is arbitrary, possibly even imaginary.

All tactical decisions ultimately come down to what allocation of resources will most efficiently move you towards your goal. Not just in 40k, in anything.

Well your wrong about that. Look at my apoc examples. There is no math equation for those choices because they are based on too many unknowns. Its unsolvable. 40k doesnt have that. Its just effeciency. You can stretch your resources with intelligent application and subterfuge. You can just apply them effeciently or not.

I just strongly disagree with your premise. You're looking at too narrow snapshots of a game. When you target a unit, you need to consider where you want your units to be positioned for efficient attacks next turn, and the turn after that - constantly reacting to your opponent's movements. That is extremely tactical.

Played a lot (almost weekly) for the past two years, and then hit a wall. Really losing interested based mainly on the ever-increasing lethality/power creep/unstoppable bs.

I just found myself immediately losing all interest when someone had a unit rolling 90+ dice (often more than once). My give-a-gak meter just fills up and I don't see why I've bothered painting anything.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP: “I don’t care how you play...”
<three pages of how people play>

Honestly, how you play or view the game has an enormous effect on whether you play, and the style you play.

As I stated above, I played recently, but if you asked me to play at 2K points with the standard, unaltered rules, I would not have played.

Lance845 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
All those things improved the game by removing needless book keeping, measuring, and making it more tactical for players.

How often do you play? Why don't you play 30k if you hate everything new?

1) he doesn't have to give you reasons to state his opinions.

2) 40k is about as tactical as monopoly. In that there is only 1 tactic.

What's the one tactic? I've won games in multiple different ways so clearly there isn't just one.

No you didn't. You spent the entire game doing the single most obviously good thing to do with the units and positions you had. You shot your big guns at the targets they are best at, with as many dice as possible to get the best odds of removing a model. I am sure you had different STRATEGIES in that you built different lists with different overall plans and combos. But you never once won a game with different tactics. 40k doesn't have any tactics. There was never once a time where you had to guess your opponents plans and try to subvert them, or lead them into a trap by baiting them, or anything else. You just shot all your guns to strip off as many models as possible as quickly as possible.

Slipspace wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Maelstrom makes the game more tactical?

Can you expound on this please?

It's in response to another poster's comment that all of the bad things about 40k someone listed actually make the game more tactical. I was pointing out that Maelstrom (one of the bad points) doesn't make the game more tactical. It makes it more random, which can help to at least alter set battleplans but it's often far too random to reward tactical play and can lead to wins through sheer luck of the draw.

I regularly feint, pincer, bait & switch, send a unit to its certain doom so that the other units can do their job. Sometimes I dont have a 1st turn shooting phase since I'm purposefully out of LOS(both ways), use full strength infantry, etc...

I'm pretty sure luck has something to do with whether or not a real life operation/skirmish/battle goes the way you've planned. Mike Tyson said it best, "Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the mouth". The game really boils down to how you react, with which unit, when circumstances bare it & how you acheived it.

If you imagine that you are actually the one getting shot at, it kinda gives you a different POV than just mathematics.

I played 7th ed after taking a break since 4th ed. Enjoyed it but fell in love with 30k.

When 8th ed hit I tried it, despised it. Stuck with 30k and never looked back.

Hoping 9th ed will not be horrible.