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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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!"

Also "30k is literally the perfect 40k system."

Only siths deal in absolutes...

I'm not sure of the point of arguing over 'how' tactical 40k is it. Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter, you can enjoy or dislike the game either way. I personally dislike it, many like it, this argument seems pointless.

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

I knew people would volunteer that information regardless of whether I asked for it.

It is interesting to see the mental gymnastics going on.

Racerguy180 wrote:

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.

The important part is that by the time you get to make any decisions the opponent has already commited and co.pleted all of their actions. You make all your choices with a full final and real snap shot of the current game. Even if the opponent has strats that could change things (rare) you know how much cp they have and what strats they can spend it on (a big component of being a tourney player). Your unit can move knowing that when it stops these targets will be available. And you can shoot your guns at those targets to maximize effeciency. And your opponent has no play to stop you or add risk to any of that. Turn by turn, unit by unit, phase by phase you alternate between waiting to see the state of the table and making all your choices based on that state with no foiling your choices by the opponent who is waiting.

Thats why its not tactical. No decision you make is a risk against the opponent. Its only a risk against the dice gods. Your gambling against the game. Not your opponent.

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

To be fair, as I play Classichammer I felt it needed some clarity.

1-2 times a week, regularly as a clock.

This can be very misleading as to the average person I am a non player at this point and yet by the options of this poll I am in the same category as somebody who plays multiple times a week. I have completely abandoned 8th because I just can't find any fun in the game but I occasionally play a game of 7th when I can get somebody who's willing to play (stopped going to my local store because I don't play 8th so I don't see people to get together a game of 7th).

 Lance845 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

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.

The important part is that by the time you get to make any decisions the opponent has already commited and co.pleted all of their actions. You make all your choices with a full final and real snap shot of the current game. Even if the opponent has strats that could change things (rare) you know how much cp they have and what strats they can spend it on (a big component of being a tourney player). Your unit can move knowing that when it stops these targets will be available. And you can shoot your guns at those targets to maximize effeciency. And your opponent has no play to stop you or add risk to any of that. Turn by turn, unit by unit, phase by phase you alternate between waiting to see the state of the table and making all your choices based on that state with no foiling your choices by the opponent who is waiting.

Thats why its not tactical. No decision you make is a risk against the opponent. Its only a risk against the dice gods. Your gambling against the game. Not your opponent.

I just googled Tactical and based on the official definition the game does involve tactics and you are wrong.

Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.

Now move on please. You're detailing the topic based on your misguided vendetta.

I'm in the boat of: "half the folks say it's bad, half the folks say it's great, so it's probably somewhere in the middle". Everyone has different expectations of things, and personal biases and whatnot, so it's pretty difficult to find a subject that 100% of people agree on.

As for me? All my game partners have, like, life stuff, so I've been without a game for awhile. And while I feel like 8th edition is a fine game, I also recognize the areas in which it could be improved to become a *better* game.

I play - on average - about a game a week.

I played actual 40K when 5th edition was out, when the Assault On Black Reach starter set came out.

I don't think I've played an actual game of 40k proper in a decade.

I still love the lore, and I love the modelling aspects. Painting them is a necessary evil at best, but I do it.

I do play Space Hulk once in a while though, and would like to try Klll Team at some point. I hear it's pretty simple.

I've played two 40K games and one Kill Team match. I really want to do more, but all of the rules, stats, and math calculating when you get certain rolls for certain actions often has me spooked and confused. I want to dive into the game, but my insecurities and feeling of being overwhelmed has really kept me from getting engaged all that much.

 Ishagu wrote:
Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.

Yes, that's technically tactics by the literal definition of the word, but it's pretty weak and shallow tactics relative to other games. Usually this sort of decision is very straightforward and mostly made in list construction. Your suicide plasma squads will always be willing to die to do more damage, your objective campers will rarely make that trade. The times when you genuinely have a difficult decision to make are few and far between.

Well, 40k is a tactical game. Strategy would be on a larger scale, larger than the skirmish based games.
It requires all sort of tactical decisions such as the basic: the movement of units and priority target schedule.
This applies to each army.
Moreover, tactical finesse such as refused flank, symetrie de position are more for the advanced player.
I've heard here that math plays a significant role. It does, but at a very low level.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.

Yes, that's technically tactics by the literal definition of the word, but it's pretty weak and shallow tactics relative to other games. Usually this sort of decision is very straightforward and mostly made in list construction. Your suicide plasma squads will always be willing to die to do more damage, your objective campers will rarely make that trade. The times when you genuinely have a difficult decision to make are few and far between.

That's also true for most games you're experienced with. I'm a MtG veteran who has placed high in multiple tournaments - on a gaming night playing a dozen games, there are about 3-4 times where I actually need to stop and think, at all other times, the decision I make is dictated by experience and tactical knowledge. A chess player would tell you the same, you make most plays the way you do because experience and tactical knowledge dictate what to do, not because you have thought through all possible outcomes.

It's the same for those plasma vets - just because you know from experience that it's always better to put them next to a vehicle and sacrifice them doesn't make it a non-decision.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Here is an example of tactics: I can move a unit into rapid fire range, but that leaves it in charging range for an enemy assault unit in a transport the following turn. I decide that it's more valuable to hold my unit back, sacrificing my damage output so I can score more objectives late game. This is literally a Tactical choice in every sense of the definition. Only some derangement would lead you to think otherwise.

Yes, that's technically tactics by the literal definition of the word, but it's pretty weak and shallow tactics relative to other games. Usually this sort of decision is very straightforward and mostly made in list construction. Your suicide plasma squads will always be willing to die to do more damage, your objective campers will rarely make that trade. The times when you genuinely have a difficult decision to make are few and far between.

That's also true for most games you're experienced with. I'm a MtG veteran who has placed high in multiple tournaments - on a gaming night playing a dozen games, there are about 3-4 times where I actually need to stop and think, at all other times, the decision I make is dictated by experience and tactical knowledge. A chess player would tell you the same, you make most plays the way you do because experience and tactical knowledge dictate what to do, not because you have thought through all possible outcomes.

It's the same for those plasma vets - just because you know from experience that it's always better to put them next to a vehicle and sacrifice them doesn't make it a non-decision.

It's not that it's a non decision. Its that it's a decision with such a obviously superior option that it creates the illusion of choice. The illusion of choice is a concept in game design. A good example is from Vanilla world of warcraft if anyone played it. Each class had dozens of talents. and "Technically" there were probably hundreds of potential builds you could make picking all your little perks at each level. But the truth was there was only 2 or 3 viable builds per a class... maybe even 1, which made all the various other options LOOK like choices you were making but when the other option is a non option it's not REALLY a choice it's just a mistake someone can make because of ignorance.

Yeah, you COULD do the sub-optimal thing in 40k. But thats the illusion of choice. And that means it's not REALLY a tactical decision. In Chess each move actually impacts the field and the opponent responds. If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent. In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

The fact that you can put plasma vets next to a vehicle and kill it is obvious... the tactical challenge then becomes how to make that happen? If the opponent has any intelligence at all, then he screens his tanks... potentially with multiple levels of screening. I've at times screened vehicles from assaults like this with other vehicles... so how do you remove the screens to get your plasma vets in? Do you deep strike them further back, knowing you'll only get a single shot instead of double-tapping? Do you hold them back until turn 3, hoping you can clear more screens, so you have a straight shot to a tank? Do you have any way of clearing a non-infantry screen to get into deep striking? Should you pick an easier target for your plasma vets?

You guys make it seem like a trivial thing, "oh, just deep strike the plasma guys in rapid fire range of a valuable target" but you're missing that the opponent knows you can do that, and so is going to prevent you (or try to prevent you) from doing that through positioning, and choosing how to counter that is obviously tactical.

 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.

Out of curiosity, what is the "Beginner army" that people keep posting about?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the "Beginner army" that people keep posting about?

The armies from the starter set - marines are generalists, so they tend to have a bit of a buffer to handle beginner mistakes and still recover.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.

i started with and have roughly 8k worth of nids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I used to have necrons but they were boring and dull. I got a small force of tau including 6 crisis suits and 2 10 man units of breachers with devilfish. I own zero riptides.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is a tactical game. Strategy would be on a larger scale, larger than the skirmish based games.
It requires all sort of tactical decisions such as the basic: the movement of units and priority target schedule.
This applies to each army.
Moreover, tactical finesse such as refused flank, symetrie de position are more for the advanced player.
I've heard here that math plays a significant role. It does, but at a very low level.

pretty much this.


risk is a much better representative example of strategy than 40k, but 40k is full of tactical decisions that can be very complex.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.

Playing Knights involves a lot of decisions as well IMO, you need to figure out what can kill them, and how best to protect them from that. It's not easy in a meta where Lord Discordants can fly 40" across the board and gut a Knight, or where Rocksaw weilding Aoclytes can appear 3" away from you and rip you in half. Decisions with Knights tend to involve "how do I protect this model as best as I can" rather than "how do I kill the enemy", and if you can outlast him until turn 4-5 you can pull out a win. Most of my ITC games are generally low scoring because of this. It's not that there are fewer decisions, they're just often more reactionary to the decisions of your opponent.

@OP:

I have played one or two games in 2018. None in 2019.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

licclerich wrote:
Got sick and tired playing against people so I play solo now but 40k is not the game to do this. Played 3 games and will play my 4th next week.

Playing solo is not impossible but requires more work. You will have to conceive a behaviour pattern for the opposing forces. Also it beats playing those awful pick-up games in those confined GW stores.

 Horst wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

In 40k your either removing models/scoring VP or your not. The illusion of choice.

I'm not sure how your games look like, but neither my Death Guard nor my orks win by sitting around with their thumbs up their asses or blindly rushing mission objectives. I need to know where I want to be in three turns when I'm moving my models, I need to decide whether to jump a sacrificial unit of boyz T1 to draw fire from lootas and gretchin or hold them back for an opening during later turns. Which powers to cast on what units, whether to attempt a advance to get somewhere or shoot at full BS, whether to gun down the storm raven or the dakka predator first, which units to charge from deep strike...

I guess you probably have a lot less decisions to make in armies that don't need to move in order to shoot like IG or knights... but I guess if you want those decisions, you are just playing the wrong army.

Playing Knights involves a lot of decisions as well IMO, you need to figure out what can kill them, and how best to protect them from that. It's not easy in a meta where Lord Discordants can fly 40" across the board and gut a Knight, or where Rocksaw weilding Aoclytes can appear 3" away from you and rip you in half. Decisions with Knights tend to involve "how do I protect this model as best as I can" rather than "how do I kill the enemy", and if you can outlast him until turn 4-5 you can pull out a win. Most of my ITC games are generally low scoring because of this. It's not that there are fewer decisions, they're just often more reactionary to the decisions of your opponent.

Heh, I didn't mean to beat on knights, I was just picturing a castellan and some helverins sitting in a corner and shooting - I'm gladly proven wrong

I have played a game in the last year. More than one in fact.

Cheers,

CB

 Lance845 wrote:


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.

So when my opponent in my last tournament put some units into reserve to gain positional advantage and then I placed some units out of ideal shooting position to zone out their reserve units you are saying that i was not guessing what they had in mind and was not trying to subvert their plans or negate the advantage they sought.

Weird, both me and my opponent thought that is exactly what was happening.

I think sometimes that you play an entirely different game.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


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.

So when my opponent in my last tournament put some units into reserve to gain positional advantage and then I placed some units out of ideal shooting position to zone out their reserve units you are saying that i was not guessing what they had in mind and was not trying to subvert their plans or negate the advantage they sought.

Weird, both me and my opponent thought that is exactly what was happening.

I think sometimes that you play an entirely different game.

I think the problem is that, yet again, that sort of decision is being made with full information on both sides. Yes, technically it's a tactical decision to screen out areas of the battlefield against deep strike and I've seen weaker players not do it properly, or forget in the mddle of their first turn and leave a gap in their screen, but it's not a difficult decision you have to make, it's just a thing you need to remember. Importantly, it's a decision that has an objective correct answer. You can prevent it happening with a checklist of procedures to follow in each turn.

Tactical depth is created when players have meaningful decisions to make, based on judgement and lack of full information such that they need to balance risk vs reward without being easily able to calculate either of those things. As an example from my game of X-Wing yesterday, I needed to decide whether to go after a flanking enemy ship (Soontir, for those that are familiar with the game) or continue my attack on the central part of my opponent's squad. I'd already done a small amount of damage to one ship but the flanker was going to be difficult to kill if left to the late game. However, the flanker didn't need to engage and my opponent might decide to break off or move slowly such that if I tried to target him I'd be left with no shots at anything. Additionally, moving to target the flanker would likely leave me exposed to free shots from the rest of my opponent's squad so I needed to consider if the pay-off was worth taking that damage for - and that's without even knowing if I'd get shots on the flanker if I went after him. In the end I decided the risk was worth it and actually surprised my opponent with how aggressively I went for the flanker, resulting in a kill in exchange for losing one of my weaker ships. This all comes aobut because neither of us have perfect knowledge - moves are decided on and locked in before any are executed but ships moving later have several ways they can potentially adjust their position after their move. What's interesting about this one scenario is that I'm not sure my opponent was wrong to do what he did. If I'd have gone after the bulk of his force and he'd have disengaged with his flanker, I would have a numerical advantage so maybe moving in to attack was the correct move after all, because he can't be sure if I'm going to move to engage his flanker or not. Both of us had risk/reward decisions to make and in both cases the advantage/disadvantage gained was always going to depend on how well we guessed our opponent's plan. That's one single turn of X-Wing and I think it had more genuine, non-trivial tactical decisions than my last 5 or 6 games of 40k combined. Importantly, there's no checklist or cheat-sheet that could have told me what the right decision was.

I don't see how that decision is more meaningful or more tactical than similar decisions in a game of 40k. Some examples from my last ork game:

1) I have a SSAG, a unit of lootas and a trio of dakka jets. All other units are infantry, but I have two deff dreads in reserves. The most dangerous things to my game plan on the other side are a storm raven, a relic whirlwind, a quad-las Chronus, interceptors (primaris with 12" deepstrike protection) and a unit of helblasters. What are the "obvious" choices? Which unit gets which stratagems?

2) Turn 2, I have a unit of shoota boyz at 5 locked in combat on the right flank, a unit of choppa boyz at 9 on the left flank (both viable targets for green tide), can da jump 30 slugga boyz and have two deff dreads in the tellyporta. Due to the interceptors the only things I can get within 9" of are intercessors, but one flank has agressors and an ironclad dread, and the other has Chronus, Calgar (worth 1d3+1 VP), Honor Guard and some more intercessors and interceptors. What units do you bring in? Where do you bring them in? What are the "obvious" choices?

3) There is a unit of Incpetors (jump troops) in the backfield that just murdered your SSAG and can threaten your lootas next turn. Do you charge a nearby warboss into them, taking him out of the game because if he does, he will never join the frontlines again? Jump a unit of tank bustas onto them to kill them with D3 rokkits? Send the warphead after them? Use lootas to kill them? What are the "obvious" choices here?

In retrospective, I'm pretty sure I took the wrong decision on at least one of those, but I'm sure that I'd only taken different decisions if had known the dice before rolling.

The biggest difference between the X-Wing scenario and mine are that the risks mostly come from dice results rather than enemy player actions, but the decisions you need to make are the same.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If you put their king in Check you can litterally force a response. Those are not the illusion of choice they are litterally tactical decisions playing off the opponent.

Often the king is in place where there aren't many good options to go, so moving in the one space that won't result in a checkmate over the next two turns is a tactical decision? That's no different from WH40k at all.

Moving the king is not the only way to get out of check. You can also take the piece putting it in check or move a different piece to block the line of attack (if the piece threatening the king is not a knight).

If your king is in a position which is vulnerable but also limited in escape routes and your pieces cannot move to protect the king then you have already made previous mistakes and are being punished for those mistakes.