Switch Theme:

Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

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

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?



Sorry, I'm not understanding your chain of reasoning here.

You give it in full and yet I'm still baffled as to how a general dislike of auras means that positioning matters in 9th.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, I more meant that position and manoeuvre actually don't matter all that much in 40k. I'm not suggesting that some grand adaptation of 'tackle zones' for 40k would be a resolution. My post even had a link to what I'm talking about - the way cover and LOS interact (or don't) and the way that vehicles in 8th/9th aren't really vehicles anymore.
PenitentJake wrote:
No it's not. It's perfectly logical- a game that has no ranged attacks obviously is going to be more concerned about position than one that does.
So it's perfectly logical that this Hive Tyrant is completely out of LOS, but this Hive Tyrant is fair game for all shooting?

This is what I mean by position and manoeuvre, and how little it matters in 40k. It is sad.
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.

Saying "position and maneuvering don't matter in 40k" is exactly what I meant by bad faith arguments that don't reflect the game.
 vipoid wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
If auras are one of the most frequent complaints about 9th, and auras have a range from characters that grant them, and if the number of characters that grant them have been limited...

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?
Sorry, I'm not understanding your chain of reasoning here.

You give it in full and yet I'm still baffled as to how a general dislike of auras means that positioning matters in 9th.
His point was that people acknowledge that auras require positioning, auras give a significant advantage (that some dislike), therefore positioning is important for gaining advantages.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 23:14:07


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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

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

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

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


But like, everything you listed there is a decision.
Land Raider immobilized on difficult terrain? You made a call to run over that difficult terrain, presumably to get there more quickly than if you had gone around. Risk vs reward, maybe a more careful player would have paid for Dozer Blades/Rough Terrain Modifications (costing points) or gone around (costing speed).

Your guys moved slowly? You chose to take that route.

Scattered into deadly terrain? You chose a dangerous deep strike location, taking a risk for taking a reward.

Each of those has risks that can be estimated ("what are the chances I will roll a one? / What are the chances I roll less than a 4 on 2d6 picking the highest? / How close am I to impassable terrain, the board edge, or enemy units when I deep strike?"). Those risks can be weighed against the rewards ("I get my terminators to disembark for an assault this turn instead of next turn / my short range guns can move into range while remaining in cover / I am better positioned for an assault next turn on a critical unit or location"). What's more, the risk/reward calculation varies from game-to-game, so the decisions are very different ("this game my Terminators are going to assault something valuable and dangerous to their ride so they REALLY NEED to get in NOW! / my short range guns need cover because the enemy has lots of low-AP shooting / my Assault Marines need to jump over the enemy screen unit to get to the objective").

Those random rolls are *caused* by decisions and their risk factors (or should factor) into the decisions players make.

It is no different than using the Desperate Breakout stratagem on a trapped tank and then rolling a 1. Sorry buddy, you knew the risks when you did the action, and they didn't pay off.

It was still a choice the player made, having weighed the risks and rewards.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 23:19:20


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 DarkHound wrote:
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.
Obscuring is through or over. That first HT is neither. It is visible and a valid target for shooting. The second one is not, as you would have to draw LOS over the terrain.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Land Raider immobilized on difficult terrain? You made a call to run over that difficult terrain, presumably to get there more quickly than if you had gone around. Risk vs reward, maybe a more careful player would have paid for Dozer Blades/Rough Terrain Modifications (costing points) or gone around (costing speed).
You're arguing past one another.

The issue isn't the Land Raider immobilising itself on difficult terrain. The issue is the threshold of what constitutes "difficult terrain" in the first place. What is difficult for infantry isn't necessarily difficult for a tracked vehicle.

Take this standard GW crater for example:



... at one point or another this terrain feature was "difficult terrain", and I've had games where I've had to make immobilisation checks because a went over the edge or lip of the crater slightly. It doesn't make sense. It's not a "risk vs reward" thing, it's something that jars are sense of realism because I've driven over bumps bigger than that in my car, at speed, and I didn't lose a wheel or break my axle.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 23:34:42


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

 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Unit1126PL, I'd say Wyldhunt's most pertinent point is the last sentence. You're right that those are still calculated risks, but the game can choose to represent almost anything as a risk. There absolutely should be risks. The question is: what is worth representing?

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.

Randomness in models attacking each other is great. My super soldiers failing to kill those cultists just reflects well on the cultists. It may be frustrating for one player, but it adds to the game.

I think the last model-vs-board randomness is charge distances, but those serve a significant mechanical purpose. They'd need to make huge changes to the game to remove the randomness. I think a better solution would be to find a way for the charge targets to influence that random roll, which would convert it to a model vs model randomness and make it more narratively satisfying. Maybe reworking overwatch again, but that's speculation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.
Obscuring is through or over. That first HT is neither. It is visible and a valid target for shooting. The second one is not, as you would have to draw LOS over the terrain.
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin. In practice, you just mention your intention to your opponent, "he's Obscured", and they'll agree or ask you to move the model a bit. Playing like that goes both ways. You can peak around corners to shoot, and you're available to be shot in return. The position of a model does not absolutely correspond to their position in the fantasy battle, there's some leeway for models moving around. There's always going to be quirks with abstraction. It's just not relevant to a discussion about gameplay depth.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/27 00:07:24


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







The issue for me is that "army vs terrain" is actually a thing in real life. You can justify anything lorewise.

"Why do you get cover against my flamethrower? Why are my supersoldiers with enhanced autosensors hindered by woods / dense terrain?"

Model vs model with no terrain is just boring. Terrain should matter. It should matter in any phase where it realistically matters.

As for "what counts as what terrain", if I recall correctly the rule was "talk with your opponent". If you are playing with terrain that is unreasonable, that is as much your fault in pre-game decision-making as it is your opponent's. I specifically remember calling only the "crater wall" difficult terrain for those craters myself, since they were perfectly circular
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

I think army vs terrain is fair. I don't disagree with you entirely, but it's a matter of degrees. Space Marines are slowed by rugged terrain, sure. Their accuracy is hindered by smoke and dense foliage, fine. My Space Marine rolled a one and now he can't move across a crater is... not good. It's not the worst thing for gameplay, but I don't think it improves the experience.

Terrain still matters even if the effects aren't random. I've been putting in about two games a week for the past 4 months and terrain has always been crucial to the outcome of the game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/27 00:06:37


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






The pertinent point that resonates with me regarding vehicles and difficult terrain is not the outcome of rolling a one per se, but rather the fact that the risk exists at all as a decision point. In the absence of the risk of rolling a 1, and with difficult terrain merely reducing how many inches you move in a predictable manner, you're eliminating a binary "tactical" choice from the game (eg you decide between two totally different movement paths with potentially broader ramifications for unit positioning) and replacing it with a simple optimization decision.

I feel pretty strongly that the presence of these sorts of binary choices was a good thing for the tactical depth of the game. You have that choices to avoid the risk, and need to weight whether it's worth it or not.

The second question is about how damaging the failure result is or should be. Personally, I think the failure results were a tad too punitive in the past. For example, what if rolling a 1 for the vehicles dangerous terrain test meant you rolled a second die and looked at a table. Maybe the vehicle is just "stuck" for a turn (eg crew stunned) or can only move 3" next turn. Maybe there's a chance it does truly get immobilized. There are ways to make it somewhat less punishing but it requires adding a bit more nuance to the rules.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 DarkHound wrote:
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin.
I didn't need to contrive anything. As the rules allow you to shoot any part of a model, even the tips of spikes, this is what the terrain rules lead to - spike to the side? In LOS. Spike above? Out of LOS. It's STUPID.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/27 00:47:50


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

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Sure, it could be a matter of how severe the penalties are (i.e. "a matter of degrees").

But we have to be careful to make sure they are sufficiently punishing to become a risk, rather than a "chore" (or that choosing the "chore" option is safer).

What I mean can be typified by Chain of Command.

Tanks that roll doubles crossing certain types of terrain bog down. Next turn, they can try to move but on a 1-3 they immobilize permanently. How to cross that terrain? You can choose to move only 1d6. You can choose a "chore" option (that is perfectly safe but slow), a "safe" option (that is perfectly safe and fast but in a different direction, i.e. around the terrain), a "risky" option (move 2d6), or a "super risky" option (move 3d6, most vehicle's top speed).
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin.
I didn't need to contrive anything. As the rules allow you to shoot any part of a model, even the tips of spikes, this is what the terrain rules lead to - spike to the side? In LOS. Spike above? Out of LOS. It's STUPID.
I don't even disagree that it's stupid. I want LoS to become base-to-base lines like the Dense terrain rules so modeling doesn't have a gameplay effect. Of course that still wouldn't remove edge cases. Line of sight has never, ever been without stupid quirks in any edition of 40k. However, firstly, in practice it's a non-issue, you just talk to your opponent. And secondly, it's still not relevant to a discussion about gameplay depth.
 Mezmorki wrote:
The pertinent point that resonates with me regarding vehicles and difficult terrain is not the outcome of rolling a one per se, but rather the fact that the risk exists at all as a decision point.

I feel pretty strongly that the presence of these sorts of binary choices was a good thing for the tactical depth of the game. You have that choices to avoid the risk, and need to weight whether it's worth it or not.

The second question is about how damaging the failure result is or should be. Personally, I think the failure results were a tad too punitive in the past. There are ways to make it somewhat less punishing but it requires adding a bit more nuance to the rules.
That's all definitely fair points, but you run into the external constraints. More die rolls to slow the game, more rules to remember and implement. Are the additional rules meaningful enough, or is -2" movement sufficient abstract representation?

It's the same issue with vehicle armor facing and weapon arcs. Previous editions having undefined weapon arcs and armor facings were entirely reliant on the models and agreements with the opponent. If you did anything different in modeling, you could drastically change how the model works. That is just not good for consistent rules writing. What is the frontal facing of a Wave Serpent? How do you define its center?

In that particular case, you have two options: define vehicle facings and weapon arcs in all circumstances, or abstract them. The former would be a mountain of work and would demolish custom models. You gain some improvement to gameplay, but are you gaining enough to justify the work and load on the players? They decided no, and instead you have to imagine a vehicle can maneuver to bring its guns to bear on targets even if you left the model facing the wrong way. Likewise, you imagine the vehicle turns its armor toward incoming fire. It's a little less deep, but far, far simpler to implement and play.

Same issue again with template and blast weapons. Sure, it's cool to represent the actual area of the explosion, but the external effect was everyone took ages to spread their models 2" all the time. It just wasted a bunch of time and didn't add much to the game.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

If 40k still had vehicles you could easily do this via speed-bands.

A vehicle can move half (or lower) it's maximum speed to avoid the need to take any tests for difficult/dangerous terrain. Otherwise, they can go flat out and risk it. There's your risk-vs-reward.

I still wouldn't make those craters wreck your vehicle's tracks though.

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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 catbarf wrote:


The core design paradigm of very simple core rules, with complexity coming from the codices, means that the core rules offer less opportunity for tactics, and more of the decision space comes from the army composition. And if my army composition makes for a bad match-up, it's a real struggle.


This is absolutely right IMO. 40k is largely a game of deceptively shallow gameplay given false "depth" through width. You have a bajillion choices, but a few of them are the right choices. Once you make the right choices, it's largely just a matter of execution. The actual strategy and tactics are largely just a matter of getting enough reps in. It practically never happens that you win or lose a game because your opponent did something brilliant and unexpected and completely original because they saw an opportunity you didn't. You win or lose games because your lists stack up in a certain way, then you throw in a bit of RNG and a bit of "does your opponent have as many reps and as much knowledge of the game as you do?" and that determines the result.

In contrast, LOTR is another GW game that has a base ruleset that is much deeper than 40k's, not in the sense of having more rules per se, but in the sense of giving more ability for a player's ability to "view" the game to influence the result. In practice the game is held back by GW's usual inability to create balanced army rules, but the base ruleset is dramatically different in the degree to which it rewards the ability to think strategically and tactically within the game itself, as opposed to peripherally through list-building or getting in practice reps.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/27 01:18:34


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

So 2 broad angles here - for a wargame and a game. Wargames have fairly standard expectations for optimisation, strategy and tactics.

You had your standard optimisation challenges around unit choices, or if they were fixed you had a bleed over into strategy as to where they would be deployed and what they would do. Its rare in a wargame for models to be able to both traverse and effect the entire battlespace. Your deployment matters and your idea around what the formations will do matters as it gives the bounds for your tactics with each element. Broadly if the infantry companies are going to take the hill supported by armour, you won't be able to get those infantry over to the other side of the board, and the armour won't be able to do the attack there, reposition and do an attack on the other side as well.
Your tactics were how each element does its stuff, what facings your attack has, what screens you can maintain, where you commit your barrages etc.

40k has a very important list building phase, a small battlespace and high speeds, to the extent transport vehicles are fairly pointless. To enable accessibility the units have little to worry about in terms of facings, lines of attack etc, thought there are still choices like screens and so on.
Complexity comes from knowing in a vaguely rock paper scissors way what to target with what and the CP/Strat game gives additional elements to every layer of decision making. There actually are traditional wargames like this, though they tend to be map and counter games with far lower movement and the hands of cards baked into the gameplay.

Currently I think GW has games where cards are built far better into the model game (Underworlds, Gorechosen etc.) and they have had games in the past they have far more of the traditional optimisation, strategy and tactics (Epic and Warmaster for example). You can throw AT in there too, but I haven't played that enough to properly comment on where in that continuum it sits.

I think as more and more players join that have no understanding of traditional strat and tactics and take it more as a straight game that becomes less of a problem, though after exposure through other games or computer games their expectations of 40k can shift.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:


The core design paradigm of very simple core rules, with complexity coming from the codices, means that the core rules offer less opportunity for tactics, and more of the decision space comes from the army composition. And if my army composition makes for a bad match-up, it's a real struggle.


This is absolutely right IMO. 40k is largely a game of deceptively shallow gameplay given false "depth" through width. You have a bajillion choices, but a few of them are the right choices. Once you make the right choices, it's largely just a matter of execution. The actual strategy and tactics are largely just a matter of getting enough reps in. It practically never happens that you win or lose a game because your opponent did something brilliant and unexpected and completely original because they saw an opportunity you didn't. You win or lose games because your lists stack up in a certain way, then you throw in a bit of RNG and a bit of "does your opponent have as many reps and as much knowledge of the game as you do?" and that determines the result.

In contrast, LOTR is another GW game that has a base ruleset that is much deeper than 40k's, not in the sense of having more rules per se, but in the sense of giving more ability for a player's ability to "view" the game to influence the result. In practice the game is held back by GW's usual inability to create balanced army rules, but the base ruleset is dramatically different in the degree to which it rewards the ability to think strategically and tactically within the game itself, as opposed to peripherally through list-building or getting in practice reps.


If both opponents have as many reps and equivalent knowledge what determines the victor? Just RNG? Just the list? What if they both have the same list?

Could you give a concrete example of a decision in LotR that has depth?

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 DarkHound wrote:
Unit1126PL, I'd say Wyldhunt's most pertinent point is the last sentence. You're right that those are still calculated risks, but the game can choose to represent almost anything as a risk. There absolutely should be risks. The question is: what is worth representing?

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.

Randomness in models attacking each other is great. My super soldiers failing to kill those cultists just reflects well on the cultists. It may be frustrating for one player, but it adds to the game.

I think the last model-vs-board randomness is charge distances, but those serve a significant mechanical purpose. They'd need to make huge changes to the game to remove the randomness. I think a better solution would be to find a way for the charge targets to influence that random roll, which would convert it to a model vs model randomness and make it more narratively satisfying. Maybe reworking overwatch again, but that's speculation...


This. Well put, DarkHound.

I understand that, in theory, something like a difficult terrain test is trying to add to the game by creating the choice of whether or not to go into the terrain. However, the possibility of rolling so badly on that test that your unit functionally skips a turn is too punitive/frustrating to be worthwhile. Technically it creates the choice of whether or not to take the dt test in the first place, but the outcomes of that choice broadly break down like this:

* Go around the terrain and accomplish what you're going for. You end up happy with your choice, but you're no better off than if the dt rule didn't exist in the first place.
* Go around the terrain and find out that it has caused you to fail your objective (ex: you failed a charge because you were slightly farther away than if you'd gone through the terrain). You end up frustrated.
* Go through the terrain and accomplish what you were going for. You end up happy with your choice, but you're no better off than if the dt rule didn't exist in the first place.
* Go through the terrain and fail to accomplish your objective. End up frustrated.

So at best, you end up breaking even, and sometimes you end up actively frustrated. That doesn't strike me as the kind of mechanic I want to include in my game.

And most of the other random mechanics we've discussed here have the same problem. The pros to including those mechanics are outweighed or even directly cancelled out by how frustrating it is when those rolls go badly for you. I've never seen a player lose a unit to a deepstrike mishap and enjoy it. I've never heard someone say, "I wish my lascannon devastators would randomly shoot at my opponent's cultists when I want them to shoot at his tanks." Failing a 3" charge is annoying when you're the charger, and it feels hollow to them wipe out those chargers because the entire enemy unit tripped on their shoelaces.

Plus, I think we're being kind of generous to assume that not going through difficult terrain is always a real choice. Remember: it used to be that many common types of terrain were dt. Dt was kind of everywhere for a while. Imagine you're playing orks. Your boyz want to charge the nearby enemy. If they don't, you can count on the enemy shooting your boyz and wiping them off the table next turn. The enemy is on the other side of some craters. If you move around the craters, your chances of making a charge are slim to none. If you go through the craters, you'll be very likely to make your charge as long as you don't fumble the dt roll.

In this scenario, going through the craters is pretty obviously the optimal choice despite there being a chance of failure from the difficult terrain. NOT going through the craters would be mathematically less likely to get you into melee. So you go into the craters, and you roll snake eyes on your dt test, and now your ork boyz are going to die having accomplished nothing because of one bad roll. Is that fun? Is your gaming experience improved by having a hole in the ground randomly screw you over like that? If you'd opted to walk around the craters, would you find yourself saying, "Wow! It was really cool how I decided to hurt my chances of getting into melee just now."?

So we're not talking about mechanics that you can just choose to ignore if you don't like them. We're talking about inserting a bunch of arbitrary failure points that might not have great counterplay.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:


If both opponents have as many reps and equivalent knowledge what determines the victor? Just RNG? Just the list? What if they both have the same list?

Could you give a concrete example of a decision in LotR that has depth?


Choosing what to activate when. Choosing when to use heroic actions, and how. Choosing the order of resolving combats, and how to resolve them. We could go on for a while here actually, almost everything about LOTR's base rules system encourages meaningful gameplay decisions within the game, not just at the list-building stage. 40k is easy to plan out; you have a game plan and you pretty much execute it, aided by the non-interactivity of 40k's turn system. Trying to change plans partway through a game is almost always a mistake, you're rewarded for just doing what you set out to do in a very methodical way. When decisive, unexpected actions turn the game on its head, it's almost always because your opponent just didn't know you could do something - i.e. a rules gotcha - rather than you spotting and taking advantage of a tactical or strategic opportunity they couldn't see.

40k is basically a glorified resource management game, you trade resources of one type for resources of another - models for victory points, or models for your opponent's models which results in diminishing their ability to trade models for victory points. LOTR is more like chess but with asymmetric forces and RNG elements. Maybe even complex checkers is a better metaphor, because it has the element where if you get things set up right, you can run the whole board in just a few moves, so a lot of the skill is in setting up that board state.

As I stated before, the actual army rules for LOTR let this system down a lot in terms of creating overpowered 40k-style wombo combos that often sap a lot of the need to play smart out of the game. But that's GW for you. Even when they create an extremely promising basic rule system, they screw it up with overpowered special rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/27 03:20:29


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Wyldhunt wrote:
And most of the other random mechanics we've discussed here have the same problem. The pros to including those mechanics are outweighed or even directly cancelled out by how frustrating it is when those rolls go badly for you. I've never seen a player lose a unit to a deepstrike mishap and enjoy it. I've never heard someone say, "I wish my lascannon devastators would randomly shoot at my opponent's cultists when I want them to shoot at his tanks." Failing a 3" charge is annoying when you're the charger, and it feels hollow to them wipe out those chargers because the entire enemy unit tripped on their shoelaces.

So we're not talking about mechanics that you can just choose to ignore if you don't like them. We're talking about inserting a bunch of arbitrary failure points that might not have great counterplay.


And you include those because the normal consequence of movement decisions is to be out of position. Other than auras and distances to objectives it is very hard to be significantly out of position in 40k. So you have artificial failure points built in. And things like auras become game changing so you have movement consequences and decisions. Personally I would prefer deploying my infantry badly to do more than impact one round of shooting. For my guard I can redeploy them 14-24" depending on dice rolls.

Start having real choices on the table and you can get rid of the forced tactics that are used to substitute for this. My marines are high tech and elite, why can't the Chaplain inspire everyone on the battlefield, instead of everyone a step and a reach away - is he handing out challenge coins? But if my movement and target options can really benefit or suffer from movement and deployment choices, more than the fairly basic way they do now, that type of thing can be opened up and the game become less complicated but more complex to play.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I guess I will fundamentally disagree on "what is a choice" with people.

To me, since putting your models and maneuvering models on the table is a choice, then positional things that cause them to subsequently fail actions are the consequences of choices made.

Then the competition becomes between your opponent's ability to make positional decision (forcing you to use DT to charge) and your ability to make positional decisions (success by going around the terrain).

Remember, your opponent gets a vote. If the quickest way to combat is through the terrain, your opponent probably meant to do that with his maneuvering, and if you roll snake eyes, that isn't a random "bolt from the blue" failure, it is a success in decision making - just, regrettably a success for your opponent rather than you.

Just like rolling a 1 for our Desperate Breakout surrounded vehicle. Your opponent surrounded it, so you rolling a 1 isn't just "womp womp you lose" - it is the consequence of clever positioning by your opponent.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Remember, your opponent gets a vote. If the quickest way to combat is through the terrain, your opponent probably meant to do that with his maneuvering, and if you roll snake eyes, that isn't a random "bolt from the blue" failure, it is a success in decision making - just, regrettably a success for your opponent rather than you.
You know, the other week I played a Crusade game where I made all terrain into difficult terrain for my opponent. I was able to measure out distances and make his charges awful or impossible. So I have experience in exactly this scenario, particularly in one critical instance. My Dire Avengers had 18" guns, and if the Sisters of Battle completed their charge then they'd flip the objective for a winning lead. With the flat -4", I know for certain that he can't reach me, so I can move up and shoot. If the terrain caused rolls instead, then it'd be unlikely, but not impossible, for him to make the distance (especially with miracle dice and re-rolls). I'd have to play as if the difficult terrain isn't there.

It's not that I don't have a choice, but rather the optimal choice is to assume the rule doesn't have an effect. Given the opportunity, my opponent has to try for the charge because the payout is game winning, so it's not influencing his decisions either. If both players are playing with the rule in mind, and in both cases the optimal play is to ignore the effect of the rule, then it's not a good rule.

It was this game, in case you were concerned my example was contrived.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/27 04:48:30


   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






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

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

Because someone said it was sad that it matters more in BB, so I thought the argument was that position and manouvre matters 2/10 in 9th, 4/10 in BB, how sad that 9th is worse at making positioning and manoeuvring interesting and difficult compared to a game where it isn't even that interesting or difficult. While my idea is that it matters 6/10 in 40k and 8/10 in BB, that's not sad, because for position and manouvre to matter more you have to make something like chess with zero randomness, list-building or advancement and I don't think it's sad that 40k is not chess in the same way it's not sad that cards matter more in MTG than in 9th. The suggestion for tackle zones in 40k was my suggestion for how 40k could have more focus on position and manouvre.

I didn't click your link, I don't see how positioning becomes more important because you need to draw LOS with all of your guns instead of the tip of your tank tread, you still have to stay in LOS of things you want to shoot and stay out of LOS of things you don't want to get shot by. The model see = model shoot abstraction can be explained by 40k being an abstraction of a moving battlefield using static miniatures, I know it breaks the immersion of a great amount of players, but it only makes positioning matter a tiny bit less in that you don't have to drive your tank into the middle of everything to use all your guns and maybe you don't want to use your rear-facing guns, but that raises the question why it exists when it never sees use. Having models with hull-mounted guns each facing 90 degrees from the previous gun such that no two guns can ever shoot the same target has made me appreciate the simplicity of just firing my guns at one or two units.

In most 9th games tri-pointing, bad touching, mid-game objective scoring more than make up for not having vehicle facings and not having to draw LOS with individual guns. None of my vehicles had worse side-armour and the only vehicles which were at risk of getting shot in the ass, Night Scythes and Monoliths did not have worse rear armour. Effectively armour facings was just a way to make melee better against my vehicles, positioning and manoeuvring did not play into it. Had Necron vehicles been designed for the system with worse side armour and all guns pointing in one direction, maybe I would have been more fond of those systems. Tri-pointing, bad touching and mid-game objective scoring were games I could at least play at participating in and when Necrons stopped being the mandatory triple Doomsday Ark + 1-3 Titanic units faction.
PenitentJake wrote:
If auras are one of the most frequent complaints about 9th, and auras have a range from characters that grant them, and if the number of characters that grant them have been limited...

Can you really claim positioning doesn't matter?

No, you don't understand, having to stay in aura range is fiddly and wastes time, having to stay in LOS with 4 hull mounted guns pointing in each cardinal direction is fun because it was a rule used prior to 8th /sarcasm.
 Mezmorki wrote:
The pertinent point that resonates with me regarding vehicles and difficult terrain is not the outcome of rolling a one per se, but rather the fact that the risk exists at all as a decision point. In the absence of the risk of rolling a 1, and with difficult terrain merely reducing how many inches you move in a predictable manner, you're eliminating a binary "tactical" choice from the game (eg you decide between two totally different movement paths with potentially broader ramifications for unit positioning) and replacing it with a simple optimization decision.

There is still an optimal decision, whether that is taking the risk or not taking the risk. What you actually want is for players to sometimes be rewarded for taking the wrong decision and punished for taking the right decision, that makes the game harder to learn and get good at and frustrating to play. You have to go learn statistics, because what's the chance that you will roll 2+ 3 times in a row? That's not something most people know or can intuitively calculate, it's 58%.
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Fine, you contrived an example where you can make a 1mm line around the ruin.
I didn't need to contrive anything. As the rules allow you to shoot any part of a model, even the tips of spikes, this is what the terrain rules lead to - spike to the side? In LOS. Spike above? Out of LOS. It's STUPID.

No less stupid than a giant hovertank getting stuck on the lip of a small crater, how were you able to come up with an elaborate excuse for 4th but 9th edition's abstractions leave you flabbergasted? Did you remember to take off the nostalgia glasses before entering the debate?
yukishiro1 wrote:
Choosing what to activate when. Choosing when to use heroic actions, and how. Choosing the order of resolving combats, and how to resolve them.

Choosing who to shoot or charge with first to have a Command Re-roll handy when it is most important instead of wasting it too early. Choosing when to use Stratagems and which ones to use. Choosing which unit to fight with first and which weapons to fire or fight with first to maximize damage against multi-wound models.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/27 06:46:50


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I guess I will fundamentally disagree on "what is a choice" with people.

To me, since putting your models and maneuvering models on the table is a choice, then positional things that cause them to subsequently fail actions are the consequences of choices made.

Yeah, we might just be looking for different things in our gaming experience. I get what you're saying about going into the crater (or my opponent standing near it) being a choice, but it's not the kind of choice I'm looking for in my action-packed scifi game. If I have a turn where I flub my shooting, I can shrug and picture my opponent's tanking the shots thanks to their own daunting defensive abilities. Them's the breaks. I got to take my shot, and the dice fell as they would. But when I don't even get to shoot in the first place because my dudes were waddling clumsily through a mud puddle, that's just lame. I feel like I was denied my chance to actually fight, and fighting is the core engagement of the game.

I don't find that lack of activity satisfying. It feels like my units were denied the chance to actually play the game. Tripping in a mud puddle or losing sight of a squadmate or however you want to fluff it is a thing that probably a thing that can be assumed to happen from time to time, but it's not what the audience is here to see. As DarkHound put it earlier:

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.


My space knights probably do occassionally struggle to climb up a dirt pile. But do they do it so often that they need a 1/36 chance of it being represented on the tabletop every time they move through a crater, ruin, or forest?

If you enjoy having your units trip on their shoe strings and die from scattering into a river of lava during deepstrike, I wish you happy gaming. Personally, I don't think the game makes the decision making process interesting enough to warrant those consequences. I remember too many occassions where my opponent lost a unit to deepstrike mishaps. He's not happy about it because it means he doesn't get to use his toys and is more likely to lose as a result. I'm not happy about it because it feels like the game rules just gave me a points handicap. It makes sense that it's gone.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 DarkHound wrote:
His point was that people acknowledge that auras require positioning, auras give a significant advantage (that some dislike), therefore positioning is important for gaining advantages.


But that's the point - I'm not sure most people who dislike auras dislike them because they're powerful.

There have been a few strong ones, sure (Girlyman's double-aura in 8th comes to mind) but by and large the effect is pretty weak. Instead, most of the complaints I've seen are:
- They add nothing to the game.
- Most of them involve rerolling 1s, and rerolling 1s for half a dozen different units is an excellent way to waste everyone's time.
- They're always on with no resource management and almost no counterplay, making them awful from a game-design perspective.
- Most of them are just copied and pasted, so far from differentiating HQs from different armies (and, in many cases, different species) they just make them all feel the same.


(I could also question the idea that putting a bunch of friendly models around another friendly model amounts to any sort of meaningful tactical positioning but that's an argument for another time.)

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





 DarkHound wrote:

This is what I mean by position and manoeuvre, and how little it matters in 40k. It is sad.
Both Hive Tyrants are not visible due to Obscuring. I swear, it's like people don't even play the game.


Obscuring only blocks UPSIDE. Not SIDEWAY.

Tyrant is visible in left-right angle. Obscuring doesn't matter. Obscuring blocks through terrain and also gives infinite height. It doesn't give infinite width.


So yeah. Guess you either don't play the game or have forgotten how basic rules work.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/27 09:51:54


2021 painted/bought: 857/1043 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Auras are just the modern equivalent of having characters attachet to units.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Galas wrote:
Auras are just the modern equivalent of having characters attachet to units.


Exactly. And thankfully deathstars are no more.


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







DarkHound wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Remember, your opponent gets a vote. If the quickest way to combat is through the terrain, your opponent probably meant to do that with his maneuvering, and if you roll snake eyes, that isn't a random "bolt from the blue" failure, it is a success in decision making - just, regrettably a success for your opponent rather than you.
You know, the other week I played a Crusade game where I made all terrain into difficult terrain for my opponent. I was able to measure out distances and make his charges awful or impossible. So I have experience in exactly this scenario, particularly in one critical instance. My Dire Avengers had 18" guns, and if the Sisters of Battle completed their charge then they'd flip the objective for a winning lead. With the flat -4", I know for certain that he can't reach me, so I can move up and shoot. If the terrain caused rolls instead, then it'd be unlikely, but not impossible, for him to make the distance (especially with miracle dice and re-rolls). I'd have to play as if the difficult terrain isn't there.

It's not that I don't have a choice, but rather the optimal choice is to assume the rule doesn't have an effect. Given the opportunity, my opponent has to try for the charge because the payout is game winning, so it's not influencing his decisions either. If both players are playing with the rule in mind, and in both cases the optimal play is to ignore the effect of the rule, then it's not a good rule.

It was this game, in case you were concerned my example was contrived.


The whole point of dice rolls is an abstraction of the randomness and unpredictability of war ("friction" or "fog of war" or what have you).

Taking away the randomness means there is no risk vs. reward calculation as you yourself admit in your own post.

What skill in generalship is there in knowing that the enemy positively definitely cannot reach you, so you are fine to move up and shoot?

If the calculus is "If terrain, move up and shoot, if not terrain, don't do that" then there is no generalship involved, just a flowchart.

If the calculus is "well, I can move up 3", making the charge a bit more likely but getting half my guns in range, that might be worth it. Or I could move up 5-6", get all my guns in range, and really lay down the hurt, but then again this specific engagement doesn't really matter so maybe playing it safe is key..."

THAT'S a decision. Not a flowchart. Weighing pros and cons, determining value, determining, managing, and mitigating risk...

Wyldhunt wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I guess I will fundamentally disagree on "what is a choice" with people.

To me, since putting your models and maneuvering models on the table is a choice, then positional things that cause them to subsequently fail actions are the consequences of choices made.

Yeah, we might just be looking for different things in our gaming experience. I get what you're saying about going into the crater (or my opponent standing near it) being a choice, but it's not the kind of choice I'm looking for in my action-packed scifi game. If I have a turn where I flub my shooting, I can shrug and picture my opponent's tanking the shots thanks to their own daunting defensive abilities. Them's the breaks. I got to take my shot, and the dice fell as they would. But when I don't even get to shoot in the first place because my dudes were waddling clumsily through a mud puddle, that's just lame. I feel like I was denied my chance to actually fight, and fighting is the core engagement of the game.

I don't find that lack of activity satisfying. It feels like my units were denied the chance to actually play the game. Tripping in a mud puddle or losing sight of a squadmate or however you want to fluff it is a thing that probably a thing that can be assumed to happen from time to time, but it's not what the audience is here to see. As DarkHound put it earlier:

Why not represent sun glare as a negative modifier if your models are attacking in a certain direction? That would be dumb; why are my super soldiers rendered helpless by that? Randomness for models interacting with the board just makes them seem incompetent, in most cases. It's frustrating for the player and detracts from the experience of the game.


My space knights probably do occassionally struggle to climb up a dirt pile. But do they do it so often that they need a 1/36 chance of it being represented on the tabletop every time they move through a crater, ruin, or forest?

If you enjoy having your units trip on their shoe strings and die from scattering into a river of lava during deepstrike, I wish you happy gaming. Personally, I don't think the game makes the decision making process interesting enough to warrant those consequences. I remember too many occassions where my opponent lost a unit to deepstrike mishaps. He's not happy about it because it means he doesn't get to use his toys and is more likely to lose as a result. I'm not happy about it because it feels like the game rules just gave me a points handicap. It makes sense that it's gone.


To me, battles are interactions with the battlespace as well as with the opponent. This means that decisions need to be made with regards to the battlespace as well as the opponent.

If you find this onerous, then we really are looking for two different things. I am looking for a wargame (war is in the name) while you are looking for a game that's vaguely war-themed, where uncertainty is reduced, terrain does not impact units (except in the cases where it does - after all, it is okay for your Space Marines to totally fail to hit because of some woods, but if they fail to move because of some woods then it's unacceptable and immersion-breaking).
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Galas wrote:
Auras are just the modern equivalent of having characters attachet to units.


I don't think that's accurate. The two really aren't equivalent. Prior to 8th edition abilities like re-rolling 1s to hit were pretty rare, re-rolling to wound even rarer. In the case of an attached character they only affected a single unit, rather than potentially affecting your entire army (even taking into account 1000-point deathstar units) and they were often taken for their increased combat power rather than purely buffing a variety of units. Some had USRs that carried over onto their unit but that's still nowhere near the same as handing out a "re-roll everything" buff to all units within 6".

The problem most people have with auras, other than how boring and unimaginative they are, is how trivially easy they are to utilise. Technically you need to position correctly to take advantage of them but having a single model within 6" of a character who's likely in the middle of your army is hardly difficult and not the mark of some brilliantly insightful tactical genius.
   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





I think the reason people are less interested in every random minutia of the battlefield are several reasons:

* Time. It takes time to simulate a whole bunch of things and slowing down the game isn't always preferable. There is more to life than an unnecessarily bogged down game that is trying to be Real Life 40k: The Game. Especially when you get older and want to do more in the time allotted to you before your deathbed.
* Terrain randomness is unequal. A difficult terrain often doesn't affect hover/flying things, so how do you balance something that maybe 1/4th of the armies will encounter 1/6th of the time? It just makes some armies suck more to play than others, especially when the dice gods seem especially unfavorable to you.
* Adding these things does not automatically make the game more fun. I know I don't miss much of the convoluted random stuff from previous editions.

Now, that is not to say some people want all this randomness back with extra bells and whistles, but it does appear a lot of people prefer the newer system. Only place I even hear people talk about the ol' systems is on Dakkadakka. Only people I might occasionally hear people lament the new editions locally are people who stopped playing over 10 years ago or people who have all they ever needed to play with themselves and are not interested in engaging with the playerbase at large, making it so that they can easily just homebrew and play in their own bubble.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 vict0988 wrote:
... nostalgia glasses...
Cool. I think we're done here.

And I didn't play 4th, so, really, what are you arguing against? Certainly nothing I said...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/27 11:55:09


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

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: